PRINCETON,    N.     J. 


'^, 


Presented  by  Mr.  Samuel  Agnew  of  Philadelphia,  Pa. 


;:  Jl^Jiew  Coll.  on  Baptism,  No.       /Q  (^(-^ 


^mi-Pado-Rantifm  ; 


o    R 


Mr.    SAMUEL     F  I  N  L  E  Y's 

Charitable  PLEA  for  the  Speechless 
feXAMINED   and  REFUTED: 

TheBaptifm  of  Believers 

M  A  I  N  T  A  I  N'D: 

AND 

l^he  Mode  of  it^    hy  Immerfton^ 

VINDICATED, 


*^i\A 


By    ABEL  '^MO  KG  AN,    at  Mddletown, 
in    East -Jersey. 


Is  A.   9.    16.    The  Leaders  of  this  People  caitfe  them  to  Err. 

Mark  16.  15,1.6.  And  he  Jaid  unto  them.  Go  ye  into  all  the 
IJ'orld,  a7id preach  the  Gofpeito  every  Creature,  He  that  believeth.. 
and  zV  baptized^  Jknll  be  fa^v^d. 

Col.    2.    12.     Buried  %i:ith  him  In  ISaptifin. 


PHILADELPH  I  A: 
Printed  by   B.    Franklin,    in  Marht-Street 


M,DCC,XLVIX. 


r '''  J 


P   R    E 


. x*.-«;t?*' 

J.      hath   not  been   already  fully  and  learnedly  difcujfed^ 
and  the  proper  Siihjecfs  and  Scriptural  Mode  of  this  ' 
fa credG a/pel  Ordinance, unanfwer ably  vindicated^  by  others  of 
Abilities  and  AdvaJitages  far  fuperior  to  mine,  that  occafions 
the  following  Sheets  ;     but  becaufe  what  1  firmly  believe  ta 
be  the  Truths  of  God,  are  ftill  oppofed  and  ridiculed  by  Men 
of  confiderable  Name  and  Figure,  ^ notwith/ianding  what  hath 
been  heretofore  Jo  well  penned  in  their  Vindication  :   Knowing 
alfo,how  ready  many  People  are  to  be  niijled  with  the  Sound 
efWor'ds,  or  a  mere  Shew  of  Argument,    and  to  take  gilded 
Errors  for  Scripture  Irmhs  from  fuch,     without   due  and 
proper  Examindtiort ;     /  can't  think,  but  'tis  my  Duty  and 
Place   {as  ivell  as  others)'  to  look  upon  the  Seafn  to '^  be  3. 
Time  to  fpeak,   and  improve  it  accordingly,   notwithfiand- 
.  ijig  my  m4iny  Infufficiencies  for  the  prefent  IVork,  and  wholly 
leave  the  Succefs  to  the  wife  Orderer  and  Difpofer  of  all 
things. 

/Kfr.  Finley,  who  fometime fince  engaged  publickly  againfi 
his  Brethren  the  Prefbyterians,  on  the  Account  of f  me  Dif- 
ference  happening  among/l  tbein -,  and  a  If o  (as  he  ivords  it) 
drew  his  Sword  againft  the  Moravians  ;  hath  thought  pro- 
ber now  to  bend  his  Forces  againji  the  Biptifts  :  Ivhether 
it  tshcauje  he  drove  all  them  before  him,  or  becaufe  they 
look' don  him  to  be  Juch  an  inconfiderable  Enetm,  not  worth 
their  while  to  divert  him  with  any  Kefift^nce',    that  there 

f  Ectlei,  3,  7, 


iv  r/^^r    P  R  E  F  A  C  E. 

is  no  more  Employ  for  his  Martial  Valour,  in  thofe  ^ar- 
terSj  and  rather  than  iiejilllj  he  -would  declare  ffar  againjl 
his  inoffenfive  Neighbours^  I  /ball  not  undertake  to  determine. 

Hoivever^  I  ?nayjuft  ojderve,  that  we  are  not  jo  frighten  d 
hy  thfconfuJeJ.Noife  of  Aofurdit'ies,  Inconfxftencies,  Novel* 
ties,  Nonfeiife,  Challenges,  ^c.  which  he  mujiers  up  again /I 
us,  as  to  betake  our/clvei  to  a  precipitant  Flight  ;  but  intend 
to  give  him  an  open  Battle  ;  for  wc  judge  we  have  the  infal- 
lible Truth  of  God  for  our  fur  e  Defence. 

Mr.  F.  goes  about  to  Apologize  for  his  appearing  in  thii 
Debate^  le/l  he  Jhould  be  cenfurd  as  a  Reviver  of  buried 
Controverfics ;  Biit  is  it  not  hard  to  find  in  what  Senfe  the 
Controverfy  about  Baptijjn  may  he  fa  id  to  be  buried  ?  luhen 
Jiden  of  oppofite  Principles  are  Jiill  living,  and  never  as  I 
know  of,  agreed  to  fay  or  zurite  no  more  about  their  different 
Sentiments  ;  and  when  both  Sides  have  all  along  more  or  lefs 
pleaded  for  their  Principles  andPra£iice,  as  occafion  requir'd : 
But  thisferves  well  enough  to  make  Way  for  hi?n  to  bring  in 
his  Jham  Re  a f on  for  his  Undertaking,  vi%.  That  we  were 
the  Aggreffors  in  this  Controverfy,  which  is  manifejily 
grotmdlefs  ;  and  he  is  defired  to  obferve,  that  we  don^t  ac- 
knowledge this  Charge  he  brings  againjl  us  :  And  he  is  at 
his  Liberty  to  try  if  he  can  make  it  good  in  any  Shape,  if  hs 
thinks  proper.  So  far  as  we  were  comfortably  agreed  for- 
merly to  promote  the  main  Caufe  of  Religion,  for  our 
parts  we  are  fo  Jiill.  And  for  any  of  our  Miniffers  to 
urge  upon  the  PeopJe  the  Neceffity  of  being  dipp'd  or  phoig'd^ 
is  no  new  Thing  j  for  'tis  all  one  as  to  urge  upon  them  the 
Neceffity  of  being  Baptized ;  feeing  iJ^e  always  faid,  that  their 
being  fprinkled  in  their  hfancy  was  not  Baptifm,  any  more 
than  Sprinkling  is  Dipping  :  And  as  to  any  Succefs  we  had  in 
bringing  People  (fuitably  qualified)  to  the  Obedience  of 
Chrifl's  Comrnands,  we  defire  to  hlcfs  God  for  it.  But  our 
Succefs  did  not  make  us  more  confident  that  our  Caufe  was 
good,  as  Mr.  F.  fuggejls  ;  for  we  know,  by  fad  Experience^ 
that  People  may  have  great  Succefs  in  a  wrong  Caufe,  witnefs 
Infant  Sprinkling  ;  IVe  knew  our  Caufe  to  he  good  before^ 
and  were  as  confiJent  of  it,  as  afterwards,  buaufe  it  is 
warranted  by  the  JVord  of  God,  whether  thire  ht  many  of 

few  on  our  Side, 

With 


T;^^    P  R  E  F  A  C  E.  t 

Jf^ith  RefpeSl  to  our  Debate  at  Cape-May»J/r.FinIeyy^jj, 

*  /  did,  'tis  true,  prof  of e  thePiiblickDifpute^,  and  thought 

*  myfclf  necejjltated  to  fuch  a  Ccurfe,  feeirig  he  had  been  at 

*  the  Place  jome  Days    before  I  went,    and  had  Earneftly 

*  perfwaded  the  People  to  renounce  their  former  Baptifmy 

*  and  be  dipt.'  Anf.  When  1  luas  at  Gohanfie,  May  15th, 
in  the  Tear  1 7 43,  /  W'^^  importun'd  to  vijit  Cape- May, 
where  a  Baptift  Church  has  been  conftituted  and  fettled  for 
many  Tears  pa  ft  [tho'  they  had  not  then  any  fettled  Minijler) 
and  had  a.  Meeting  Houfe  of  their  own,  and  were  then  about 
building  a  new  one  at  fome  Dijiance  from  the  other,  for  their 
own  UTe,  and  greater  Conveniency.  Accordingly  I  went 
down,  and  reached  there  on  Tuefday  Night;  and  Mr.  Finley 
came  down  from  Cohanfie  after  me  theTh\ix(dzy  following  : 
So  that  I  was  not  very  long  there  to  perfuade  the  People  to 
renounce  their  Baptifm.,  as  he  expreffes  it,  before  he  came. 
But  in  that  time,  I  don't  remember  I  had  any  Conference 
with  any  one  ftngle  Perfon  about  Infant  Baptifm  :  Neither 
did  I fpcak  any  thing  of  the  Ordinance  in  Publick,  till  I  un-* 
derjinod  there  were  fever  al  Per  Jons  that  propofcd  to  be  bap-, 
tized  ;  upon  which  Occafion  I  thought  it  Neceffary  and  Expe- 
dient  to  open  the  Nature  and  Defign  of  this  Ordinance  in 
Courfe,  as  I  infijied  on  the  Six  Principles  the  Apojile  men- 
tions  ;  Heb.  6.  I,  2. .  Which  I  did  on  Thurfday  in  the  Af- 
ternoon {for  the  Perfons  were  to  be  baptized  the  next  Day) 
with  a  Fiezv,  in  Particular,  for  the  Help  and  Benefit  of  thofe 
that  were  expe^ed  fortly  to  fubmit  to  it  ;  and  did  then,  and 
do  flill  think  myfelf  jujiifiable  in  fo  doing,  efpecially  on  fuch 
an  Occafion.  Now  this  is  the  juji  and  plain  Account  of  the 
Affair,  and  all  the  Ground  i?/"  yW/'.Finley'sEmphaticaI/i^j> 
of  expreffing  himfelf,  of  my  having  f3,xvkt^\-^  perfwaded  the 
People  to  renounce  their  former  Baptifm  and  be  dipt. --- 
juJl  as  if  they  had  all  been  educated  Prefbyterians.  And 
let  him  make  the  mofi  of  it  he  can^  'tis  but  a  very  fiender 
Ground  to  Countenance  his  Conduoi,  in  propofing  a  publick 
Difpute  immediately  upon  it  ;  juJl  as  if  I  had  not  the  Liberty 
to  preach  what  I  believed  to  be  th  e  Truth  of  Chrifi,  in  a 
Baptift  Meeting  Houfe,  on  fuch  a  fpecial  Occafion  (as  he,  or 
ethers,  has  in  his)  to  a  Baptiji  Church,  and  among  a  People, 

A  3  many 

*  Which  was  »rried  on,  by  each  of  us  preaching  a  Sermon  on  the  Subjeit* 


vi  Ti^^    P  R  E  F  A  C  E. 

many  of  whom  were  inclin'd  to  our  Way  of  Thinking,  before  1 
tventdown,  as  is  manifeji,  by  their  j lining  together  to  luil4 
a  New  Meeting  Houje  Jor  their  own  proper  life  ;  without 
being  dheSily  upon  it,  viz.  the  next  Morning,  challcng'd, 
cr  called  upon  by  him,   t^  difpute  the  Matter  publickly. 

IVhich  Propofal  of  his  was  as  unnecefiary  as  it  zuas  arro- 
gant ;  feeing  thofe  who  then  propofed  to  he  baptized  (and 
Jeveral  others)  were  already  fettled  in  the  Point,  and  only 
tvantedan  Opportunity  to  obey  the  Lord  in  his  f acred  InjU' 
tutions.  And 

^  If  he  wanted  to  confirm  his  People  in  their  received  Opi- 
nions, the  Way  was  clear  for  hiin  to  do  it,  either  by  private 
Conference  or  publick  Preaching  among(i  them,  without 
waking  Uje  of  fuch  a  fcIfiHi,  maiteily  Wa'^,  or  infringing 
tf/z //;i?  Liberties  and  Privileges  of  others  ;-- for  I  had  ai 
much  Right  to  go  and  preach  there,  as  he  hadhimfelf 

IVhatever  he^  or  his  Favourites  may  think  or  fay  on  the 
Cccafion,  or  however  they  may  Glufs  over  his  CondiK^,  / 
am  perfwaded  it  will  appear  to  all  itnpartial  judicious  Per^ 
foniy  that  1  had  very  ju/i  and  ivarrantable  Grounds  to  dt 
what  I  did^  and  that  his  whole  Procedure  in  the  Affair .^ 
looks  more  like  a  defign'd  intended  Oppofttion,  and  bufying 
himfelf  in  other  Men's  Matters,  when  thef  only  aSi  in  the 
proper  Duties  of  their  Station,  than  any  Thing  dfe. 

Now  'tis  upon  the  Shoulders  of  fuch  pretended  Reafons 
that  his  Performance  is  fent  ah oad  into  the  World:  But 
as  I  once  told  him,  if  their  Wriiing  on  the  Subjea,  had  the 
like  Effta  as  their  Preaching  on  it,  we  need  not  be  much 
concerned  ;  for  to  my  Knowledge,  divers  Perfons  fprinkled 
in  their  Infancy,  have  been  convinced  that  Infant  Sprinkling 
isu  »r:g,  whilflthey  heard  their  Minifiers  labouring  defign- 
edly  ,0  EJiciklijh  it  ;  and,  as  I  have  been  fmce  inform"  d^  our 
Debate  at  '>.  ape-Mav  had  fome  fuch  happy  EffeSf. 

I  am  much  of  the  Mind^  that  the  more  this-Controverfy  is 
handled,  the  more  will  People's  Eyes  be  opend  to  fee  thg. 
Truth  according  to  Holy  Scripture. 

'  Before  I  conclude  (fays  he)  I  muji  defire  of  my  Oppo- 
*  nents,  that  if  any  of  them  be  difpo^'dta  Remark  upon  this 

Piece,   they   would  viiw   my   Arguments    m   their  prop er>  ■ 

!  ^^^^^^  ""^  ^^t  them  appear  in  ihiir  own  Coim;  without 
:  fervcraoji,*  ...  ^^^ 


ne    PREFACE.  vii 

I  •  How  clofely  I  have  followed  this  Rule  which  he  is  pleas'' d 
to  Chalk  out  for  his  Opponents  to  work  by  (whom-,  it  is  iikcy 
he  fufpeils  or  prejudges  /<?  ^^  auk  ward,  //  not  wicked)  will 
beji  appear  in  the  Ferufal  of  the  following  Pag£s  ;  only  I 
would  obferve,  perhaps  this  is  intended  for  greater  Service 
than  one  is  aware  of  at  firji  Sight  ;  for  let  his  Arguments 
i?e  ever  fo  fairly  and  fully  overthrown,  and  made  appear  t9 
be  nothing  but  a  mere  Heap  of  Words,  without  the  leafi 
foundation  in  Scripture  [as  the  Sprinkling  of  Infants  itfelfis) 
J  can't  tell  but  this  Preparative  will  be  ifed  for  a  Catho- 
licon,  or  an  Univerfal  Remedy  againji  all  Maladies  \  at 
Perfons  whofe  Caufe  won't  bear  Examining,  when  they  are 
rejuted^  gineraltyfay,  that  their  Jrguments  are  jperverttdy 
fr  taken  in  a  wrong  Light :  Why,  the  Reafon  is,  if  their 
own  Colour  is  wifd  off,  they  appear  to  be  nothing  elfe  hut 
manifeji  Perverlion  of  Scripture  Truths.  But  we  are  told, 
*  I  fpeak  thus,  hecaufe  1  have  known  rnany  of  them  a£i  a 
f  different  Part,  in  arguing  againft  fomething  we  never  f aid 
«  injiead  of  Atfwering  our  Arguments'*  Reply.  Let  th» 
Reader  fufpend  his  Judgment  while  he  reads  only  the  follow^ 
iug  Remarks  on  the  fir/i  Part  of  his  Performance,  and  he 
Jhall  fee  zvhether  we  Blunder /o  wretchedly  in  our  Jnfwers, 
as  Mr.  f^inley  fuggefis  ;  or  is  it  hecaufe  their  Trumpets 
glvefo  very  contrary  as  well  as  uncertain  Sounds,  that  occa- 
ftons  different  Replies. 

Whiljl  I  was  about  to  anfwer  Air.  FV  Pe-formance,  I 
happen  d  to  light  on  another  Pamphlet,  written  Dialogue- 
Wifc^  onihe  Suhj-M  of  Infant  Baptifm,  without  the  Author's 
I^arne  to  it.  I  have  taken  fome  Notice  of  it  (which  init- 
felfljudgs  fcarcely  worthy  of  any)  hecaufe  I  learn  it  is  migh- 
ii'y  erf  d up,  to  he  fome  Rara  avis  in  Terris  ;  a  mere  Non- 
fuch  ;  far  furpaff.ng  Mr,  Finley'o  ;  But,  for  my  Part,  I 
can't  think  it  fjipafjeth  his  in  any  Thing,  unlefs  it  he  in 
Boldnefs  to  ajfert  ^aifl:ioods  ;  fome  ofzvhich  I  have  taken 
Notice  of\  and  if  any  dffivt  more  Infiances^  lam  ready  ^  on 
proper  IFarning,  to  produce  them. 

If  any  Perfons  into  whofe  Hands  thefe  Sheets  may  come^ 
do  thi::k  that  'tis  unneceffary  to  contend  about  this  facred 
Qofl el  Ordinance  ;  and  call  it  a  Contending  about  Meats 
«WDuiiks,   undsr  PnUMi  of  living  in  Lqv(  and  Peac* 

with 


^"'i  ^e    PREFACE. 

^thothen  that  differ  from  them,  I  muji  needs  fay,  that  fucb 
rfrjons  atjcoyer  their  Love  to  Chrifl  but  very  poorly  (if  thef 
have  any  Jhir.g  elfe  at  all  brftues  a  natural  Jfecfiou  iaifed 
and  heated)  u.hen  they  can  quietly  look  on,  and  fee  his  Holy 
Ordinance  trampled  in  the  Mire,  and  defpis'd,  without  at- 
tempting  to  put  Jorth  their  Hand  to  raije  up  fallen  Truth  * 
5..Jude,  ver.  3.  j  Cor.  11.  2.  Let  that  Love  and  Peace 
^^  Anathema,  which  mufi  be  upheld  by  finful  Silence  (which 
wilLmaKe  the  Conjcience  within  roar)  ^Wmaintain'd  at  the 
£xpence  of  the  Ruins  of  ChrijVsf acred  Inflitutions.  True 
Chrifiian  Love  difcovers  itjelf  in  Regarding  thofe  who 
bear  the  Image  of  Chriji,  and  in  the  mean  Time  detedinff 
ineir  Errors,  and  reproving  thetr  Faults.     Gal.  2.  11, 

If  ^Jbe  obje^ed,  that  1  difcover  too  much  Pofitivenefs 
cM  jlfurance  in  my  Way  of  Writing,  J  anfwer  in  the 
l^ords  of  the  Reverend  and  judicious  i  Mr.  Dickmfon,  of 
±.lizabeth-Town,  on  another  Occafion,  mix.  '  I  am  as  fully 
^  perjuaded  that  the  Caufe  lam  defending  is  the  Caufe  of 
c  J  ji  V-  ^""^  '^'""^  ^^'  Scriptures  are  the  Word  of  God, 
^  Iff  bekeve  the  one,  I  mufi  believe  the  other,  if  it  be  pojfible 
to  underfland  the  Meaning  of  the  mofl plain  Jamiliar,  and 
exprefs  Words  that  can  befpoken.' 

And  further  in  the  faid^  Reverend  Author's  Words,  with 
little  Variation,  '-  I  have  this  to  fay  in  my  Defence  ;  tho'  / 
^  am  far  from  fuppofng  jnyfelj  Infallible  ;  yet  I  don't  think 
^it  a  juji  Reafon  to  run  into  Scepticifm,  and  to  doubt 
«  °fjj^'  C^r/^-'w/y  ofjome  of  the  plainefl  Truths  in  the  Word 
of  God,  becaufe  lam  fallible  a-ad  liable  to  Mijiake.—I  am 
^  not  willing  to  make  a  Compliment  of  fuch  an  important 
;  i^^'!^  ofpraSiical  Godlinefs  (upon  which  the  Glory  of 
^  Chrjft,  Gofpel  Order,  and  the  Beauty,  Excellency, 
^  and  Regularity  of  the  New  Teitament  Church  do  fo 
^  much  depend;  to  any  Perfons  of  what  Na?ne  or  Chara^er 
^  Joever  ;  or  to  appear  Wavering  or  Uncertain  about  it,  that 
■  Imay  avoid  th\s  Cenfure  j  andbefpeak  the\Charaaer  of  a 
*  modefi  Writer:  ji  *  j  ^ 

^    Ihat  Truth  may  prevail  above  Error,  Chrijlianity  fpread 
in  Purity,   and  Godlinefs  abound  with  Power,  'till  we  all 

*  Ila.  59.  14.     Jer.  9,  3. 

serltiol"^'^  ^  ^^'^'^^^ '"  ^"  ^""°*  ^^  *^*  ^*'""  ^^^  Neceflity  of  Regs* 


'the    PREFACE.  ix 

come  In  the  Vmty  of  the  Faith,  and  of  the  Knowledge  of  the 
Son  of  God,  unto  a  perfeSf  Man,  unto  the  Meafure  of  the  Sta  - 
ture  of  the  Fulnefs  of  Chriji  ;  /f,  and  thro'  Grace  JhaU  be  the 
Prayer  of  him  who  defires  true  Peace  and  Profpertty  may 
increafe  within  the  Palaces  0/ Jerufalem,  to  the  Glory  of 
God  ;  unto  whofe  benign  Blejfmg  and  Dijpofal  I  commit  my 
poor  Labours  in  his  Service. 


A.      M» 


(  II  ) 


Anti-Pado'Rantifm  ; 

Ur.    SAMUEL    F  I  N  L  E  Y's 

Charitable  Plea  for  the  Speechlefs, 

Examined    a7^d  Refuted,    ^c, 

THE   Gofpel   Truth    which  we   believe  and 
maintain,  wiih  refped  to  the  Subjeas  of  Bap- 
tifm,     is,    ^ hat  thofe  Perfom -who  prof efs  theif 
Faith  in  Chrijl^  and  Repentance  for  their  Sins, 
sre  the  only  proper  Subjeifs  of  Baptijm.     Seme  of  the  Pla- 
ces of  Holy  Scripture  whereupon  our  Faith  is  grounded, 
are  thefe  ;  Mat.  'nh  5,   6,  7,  8,   9.     Then   went  out  t9 
/;/m  Jerufalem  and  all  Judea,    and  all  the  Region  round  a- 
bout  Jordan,  and  ivere  baptized  of  him  in  Jordan,  confeflT- 
jng  iheir  Sins.     But  tuhen  hefdw  many  of  the  Pharifees  and 
Sadducees  come  to  his  Baptifm,  he  [aid  unto  them,  O  Gene- 
ration  of  Vipers,    who  hath  warned  ycu    tc  flee  from  the, 
Wrath  to  come  ?  Bring  forth  therefore  Fruits  meet  for  Re- 
pentance,   and  think  not  to  fay  within  )ourfelves,  we  have 
Abraham  to  our  Father  :     For  1  fay  unto  you,  that  God  is 
fible  of  thefe  Stones   to  raife  up  Children  unto  Abraham. 
John  :v.    I.     When  therefore  the  Lord  knew,  how^  that  the 
Pharifees  had  heard,     thqt  Jefus  made  and  baptized  more 
'j:-i>ciples  than  John.     Mat.  xxviii.    ig.     Go  ye  therefore 
end  teach  all  'Nations,   baptizing   them  in  the  Name  of  the 
Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghcji.     Compared 
Vixih  Mark  xv\.  !<;.  16.   And  he  f aid  unto  them.  Go  ye  in- 
fo all  the  World,  and  preach  the  Gofpel  to  every  Creature^ 
/&e?f>?'rt/  belie\cth  and   is  baptized,  Jhall  be  faved  ;    but  he 
ibut  beiieveth  nGtfijglihdamned»     Aili'n./^l'    Thin  they 

that 


(      12      ) 


,„...i4,  ,kVi  ;i„S;  tL'Xt'r/  'i"'s 

Name  of  JeCus  Chri/f    th  '^^^"g^om  of  God,  and  the 

they  ca„„  unj a  t\.Vnmt    J,'!,  T'  'VY'r  '^^^. 

;  f  ^^'^^  ^rjey  jaia^  he  It  eve  0)1  the  Lord  "^.f^jr  r^L  •  n 
^ndthoufl^althefaved,  and thv  HouT  J  ll^r  ?  ''^^^ 
him  thclVord  of  the  LT/  ^^  ,  %'•  ,  "^"^^  they  fpake  unto 
Mdhe  tZfhLr'  fl'^^'  ^il that  were  in  his  Houfe' 

Houfc.  Chap  xvm.  8.  ^WCrifpus,  the  Chief  Ruler  of 
thejynasogue  h,h..,d  on  the  Lord  with  allh^  Houfe  • 
4^iTr^^^'^^'^^'"^-^^'  ^-•-^^'  l^^lieved^ndter'e 

Thefe  Texts  of  Holy  Scripture,  with  others  that  niieht 
be  mentioned,  are  fo  clear  and  full  to  the  Pu  pofe  Th't 
proJeffingBehevers  are  the  o.ly  proper  SubjeSis  TLitf'^ 

r  ■  .^"^^^'^h.^PP^"'  o'-  becarriedon  about  thisMatter  But 
iK,tw.Mandnjg  the  Pouu  is  fo  clearly  c../r..7by    cr^- 

oun;  p-e^dTo  th"e°T  f ''  ?"  ^'^P°"^"^^'  who'ftrenu- 
7o\lTttl  t  ^"^^"^5^^^^^"g  ^  Right  to  Bapt.fm, 
cio  take  much  Pains  m  order  to  overthrow  it  •  wh-Vh 
^akes  ,t  nece/Tary  for  us  to  fland  in  Vindication  of  tli^ 

nrnn!^!"^^  ''  '^  ^^^^'^^^^^^^  that  Controverfies  are  always 
are  Ihuifled  in,  and  infifted  on,  as  tho'  they  were  the  ve- 


in) 

ty  Subflance  of  the  Points  debated  ;  and  as  fuch  a  Prac- 
tice argues  either  Weaknefs  in  Perfons  to  diftir.guifti 
what  belongs  to  a  Cafe  in  Hand,  and  what  not,  or  elfe 
evidently  befpeaks  real  Want  of  Argument,  to  fiipporc 
what  is  advanced  ;  fo  it  natively  tends  to  carry  on  endlefs 
Strife  and  Contention  betwixt  the  Parties  controverting, 
without  much  Profit,    or  bringing  Things  to  a  defirable 

Iflue. 

To  an  impartial  Reader,    I  believe  this  will  appear  to 
be  the  Cafe,    refpedting  this  much  controverted  Pointy 
viz.  Baptifm  :   Now  feeing    it  hath  been  long  debated.:^ 
who  are  the  only  and  proper  Subjeas  of  this  Gofpel  Or- 
dinance,   one  might  judge   the  only   dired  and  ready 
Way  to  come  at  the  Knowledge  of  the  Truth,  and  end 
the  Conteft,  would  be,  to  begin  with  the  firft  Account  the 
Scriptures  give  of  this  Ordinance,    and   having  trac'd  it 
all  thro'  the  New-Teffament,    to  believe  and  praaife  ac- 
cording to   the   Precepts  and  Examples  therein  given  of 
Believers  Baptifm.     But  our  Opponents  don't  think  pro- 
per to  follow  this  Method  ;    willing,    it  feems,    to  find 
fomething,   if  it  were  poilible,    to  countenance  their  re- 
ceived Pradice  of  Infant  Baptifm  :    And  tho'  they  have 
been  already  fufficiently  refuted,  do  fiill  entertain  us  with 
an  ufelefs   Repetition  of  their   Thread  bare  Arguments 
from  Abrahams  Covenant  and  Circumcijhn  :    So  that  un- 
der the  Name  of  Controverting  about  Baptifm,    the  De- 
bate is  impertinently  and  ufelefsly  carried  ofFto  another 
Subjefl,  viz.  Abraham's  Covenant.     Juft  as  if  the  ready 
Way  to  difcover  who  ate  the  proper  Subjeds  of  Baptifm, 
was  by  looking  back  fo  far  as  unto  Abraham.,  long  enough 
before  the  Ordinance  itfelf  was  inftituted  !     Or,    as   if 
Chrifl,    together  with  the  Inftitution  of  Baptifm,    had 
not  given  us  full  and  fufficient  Information  and  Direai- 
ons,  who  were  to  be  the  Subjeds  of  it,  without  having 
.    Recourfe  to  Abraham^  Covenant  and  Circumcifion,    to 
fupply  the  Defea  !    Is  it  not  an  evident  and  plain  Truth 
that  the  Right  and  Title  of  any  to  Baptifm,  is  of  no  old- 
er Date,    than  the  Inftitution  of  the  Ordinance  itfelf  ? 
And  is  it  not  as  plain,    that  no  good  or  fufEcient  Argu- 
ment caa  be  brought  from  any  Thing,  before  the  Inftitu- 


tion 


(     14    ) 


tron  of  Bapt.fm,  toprove  the  Rightof  Infanfs  to  It;  feeintf 
the  Scriptures  no  where  inform  us,    that  Chrift   ordered 
or  commanded  his  D.fciples  to  baptize  Infants  ;     ne  th'; 
W  wc  any  Inftances  of  it,    any  where  in  the  Wo: d  of 

jfZlJ^'n  ^"'P"^'    r '"   ^''^^  ^^^'^  Argument  frod 
^^ra^ams  Covenant,   fince  it  is  foreign  to  The  Matter  ia 

m  ?  Why,  'tis  juft  to  amufe  themfelves,  and  continue 
the  unhappy  Conrroverfy  betwixfus.     I  c^n't  fay  indeed 

ivLZ  U^^/'f  ^^^°'"^  ""'■  OPP<^n-cs  upon  thia 
i  regular  Method  of  vmd.cating  tndr  Fraaice  of  b.pti- 
z.g  Infants  :K.caure  ('tis  hke)   there   appears    not  Ly 

Ita^  '"  r^t  ^t'T''  °^  '^'P^'^'"'  -'  i'the  continued 
^ladb.e  of  the  Apofti.s  afterwards,  worth  their  wnile  to 
beg.n  on  Bat  after  all,  their  far-fctch'd  Argutr^ents 
don  t  conclude  for  them,  belldes  other  Reafon.,  ^e^aufe 
the  ScnptureAccuat  of  the  Subjeas  of  Haptifm  mS 
ut  erly  aga.ua  .hem.      W.at  Adtanca.e  Mr'  Mn/^^^ 

J)i?  %  ""''"^'f'   ^^  ''  ^''^  "^^'^^  ^^■>'<^-J^  for,    bv  his 

^face  theonefavmgi  '  and  accordm:.  to  God's  Purpofe' 
of  Lledion,  and  the  other  not  favin^fy,  but  only  in  the 
S.ght  of  the  vif.ble  Chur.h,  d.es'^^t  read-^y^pearl 
conhder.ng  he  iiatn  ,)ot  im^.-oved  this  Diftin^ion  to  hi! 
prefuu  Purpofe,  by  ai^.ng  u,  f -me  Inftances  of  the  A- 
Pfks^  bapt,za,g  the  lui^nc  S.ed  of  Behevers,  upon  thi, 
of  .heir  being  vil:b  y  ,n  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  or  upoa 
any  other  Account  ;  b.t  as  this  was  not  poffihle  for  him' 
tod.,  his  Diamilion  13  ufelef.  iu  thii  prefent  Controver- 

.1.^5"  u^!>u'  '?^'^^  ^'^^^  ^'^  P'^^^^^  f'^  believe  him)' 
that  all  Church-members,  ana  their  Seed  are  in  Cove- 
nant, as  all  the  I/rae/ites,  old  and  voung,  were  in  it 
I^ei^t.XKix.  10,  II,  But  thi.  can't  be,  for  that  Cove- 
rant  made  xvith  the  />./;>..,  at  the.r  Return  out  of 
^Upt,  ..  abohfned.  Jer.  xxx..  31,  32.  Hd.  viii.  8,  o. 
11^^  bcripture  is  plain,  tktt  the  New  Covenant  is  noil 
accordiug  t.  that  :  And  M  •.  F.  has  not  produced  any 
i-iaceofijcnpturc  tg  prove  that  the  Intant  0%ring  of 

Chuxc^o 


Ghurch-Members  are  vifibly  in  the  New-Covtfnanf^ 
therefore  his  AfTertion  is  groundlefs. 

To  fay  that  Beh'ever's  Infants  are  vifibly  in  the  New- 
Covenant,  by  natural  Generation,  or  Birthriehr,  is  ab- 
furd  J  befides  it  would  be  inconfiftent  with  Deui.  xxix. 
io,  II,  b'f.  where  the  Little  ones,  there  mentioned^ 
were  not  in  that  Covenant  by  Birthright  j---and  to  ima- 
gine they  are  brought  into  the  Covenant  vifibly  by  Bap- 
tifm,  is  alfo  abfurd  ;  for  then  they  are  not  vifibly  in  the 
Covenant  before  Baptifm  :  It  therefore  follows,  that  our 
Opponents  can't  pretend  to  baptize  them,  as  being  vifibly 
in  the  Covenant  before,  if  it  is  by  Baptifm  they  are 
brought  vifibly  into  Covenant,  unlefs  the  Infants  of  Be- 
lievers are  vifible  and  not  vifible  in  the  Covenant  ^t  the 
fame  Time,  which  to  affirm,  is  not  very  good  Senfe  : 
How  trifling  then  and  infignificant  muft  fuch  a  Diftindti- 
On  be,  to  fupport  a  Caufe  which  wants  better  Proof  ? 

And  what  does  Mr.  Finley  feek  to  do  further,  by  his 
Biflindion  of  a  Two-fold  Way  of  Sealing  the  Covenant, 
viz.  Internal  by  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  External  by  the  Sa- 
craments ?  Is  it  that  the  Infants  of  Believers,  ought  to  be 
fealed  with  the  Sacrament  of  Baptifm  ?  Why  it  wont  help 
him  at  all,  for  this  Reafon,  becaufe  God  has  not  order'd 
him  to  do  it---I  fay  God  has  never  commanded  to  bap- 
tife  Believer's  Infants,  neither  have  we  anv  Examples  of 
Infant  Baptifm,  in  any  Part  of  the  Word  of  God  ;  'tis 
therefore  horrid  Prefumption  in  any,  to  adminiiler  this 
Ordinance  unto  them  :  If  Mr.  F.  denies  this,  I  demand 
^e  Place  of  Scripture,  which  authorifeth  him  to  baptize 
Believer's  Infants  j  and  if  he  can't  produce  any  divine 
Warrant  for  his  Praaice,  as  I  know  he  hath  not,  he  is 
defired  to  obferve,  that  his  Confequence  upon  Confe- 
quence  is  no  Divine  Authority  ;  and  therefore  utterly  in- 
fufficient  to  bear  him  out  in  his  prefent  Praaice  :  For 
according  to  Holy  Scripture,  none  are  to  be  baptized 
but  thofe  who  make  a  Profeffion  of  their  Faith  and  Re- 
pentance i  and  fo  at  leaft  profefs  they  have  the  Interna! 
Seal  ng,  or  the  Work  of  God's  Spirit  upon  their  Hearts 
tirft,  before  they  receive  ths  External,  viz,  Baptifm  ;  fee- 
Wg  the  ffomer,  as  Mr.  F,  acknowledges,  is  ^gnified  and 

reprefented 


C     i6-    ) 

nprepnted  by  the  latter  *  Only  keeping  clofe  to  thi^ 
Order  and  Appointment  of  God  in  the  New  Teftament, 
Mr.  F.  may,  for  me,  enjoy  the  Benefit  of  his  Diftindtions 
as  long  as  he  pleafes.  We  are  weJi  fatisfied  that  the  Di- 
rection of  Chrift  (the  wife  Lawgiver)  to  admlnifter  Bap- 
lifm  to  profeHing  Believers,  and  the  Practice  of  the  Apo- 
ftles  who  baptized  only  fuch,  is  a  much  fafcr  Guide  to  us, 
than  all  Mr.  Finley^s  Notions  and  Goi^ftquences  from 
jtbrahamh  Covenant  and  Circumcifion  can  be  to  him, 
to  adminifter  this  Holy  Ordinance  to  Infants^  without 
any  Divine  Command  or  Apojiolical  Example  at  all. 
And  further,  tho'  our  Opponents  are  very  fond  to  call 
/the  Sacraments  the  Seals  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  yet 
they  are  not  to  adminifter  them  to  any,  bur  according  tC 
the  Divine  Directions. 

Were  rt  the  Will  of  God,  that  Believer's  Infants  Ihould 
be  baptized,  can  this  Gentleman  imagine  the  Almightjr 
would  not  have  infoi  m'd  tis  thereof  ?  undoubtedly  he 
would  ;  for  there  is  as  much  NeceiTity  of  a  Divine  War- 
rant to  baptize  Believer's  Infants,  as  there  was  for  the* 
Circumcifing  the  Jewifh  Infants  :  For  the  Command 
to  circumcife,  can  never  authorize  any  to  baptize  them  j 
Ijecaufe  Circumcifion  and  Baptifm  are  two  difterent  Ordi- 
nances, in  two  diftin6t  different  Adnniniftrations,  and 
both  dependant  on  two  diftindt  Inftitutions.  And  for 
our  Opponents  to  find  fault  that  their  Infants  are  not 
now  to  be  baptized,  as  the  yewijh  Infants  were  circum- 
cifed  formerly,  is  nothing  lefs  than  to  quarrel  with  the 
Wifdom,  Sovereignty,  and  good  Plg^fure  of  Almighty 
Ood  ;    and  what  can  be  more  daring  or  prefumptirous  ? 

Mr.  Finhy's  firft  Enquiry  is.  Whether  the  Infants  of 
fuch  as  are  Members  of  the  vifible  Church  have  a  Right 
to  the  Ordinance  of  Baptifm  ?  To  which  I  anfwer  in  the 
Negative.  And  'tis  very  juft  I  fhouU  deny  Infants  to' 
have  a  Right  to  Baptifm  ;  becaufe  there  is  no  mention 
made  of  it  in  Holy  Writ.  'Tis  no  where  recorded  in' 
Scripture,  that  all  Infants,  or  any  Infants  at  all  were  bap- 
tized upon  the  Confideration  of  their  being  in  Covenant. 
There  is  no  juft  and  neceflary  Gonfcquence  from  any 

Scripture* 

*  P»g«  4« 


(    17    ) 

Scriptures  compared  together  to  fupport  it.  'Tis  not 
urg'd  upon  the  Parents  throughout  the  whole  Word  of 
God,  to  be  their  Duty  to  bring  their  Infants  to  Baptifm. 
There  is  no  Bleffing  promifed  if  they  do.  There  is  no 
Threatning  denounc'd  againft  them  if  they  don't.  Again, 
there  is  no  Divine  Authority  given  to  any  to  baptize  them ; 
for  the  Words  of  the  Commiilion  run  thus  :  Preach 
the  Gofpel  to  every  Creature  ;  he  that  believeth,  and  is 
baptized,  Jhallhe  faved^  Marie  xvi.  15,  16.  Mr.  F.  may 
know,  how  big  foever  his  Argument  for  Infant's  Right 
to  Baptifm  from  Abraham!?,  Covenant  appears  in  his  own 
Eyes,  yet  when,  according  to  ^/x  Or<af^rj,  we  weigh  it  in 
the  Ballance  of  the  SanSiuary,  we  find  it  won't  pafs  cur- 
rent in  any  Province  where  Money  goes  by  Weight,  be- 
caufe  hghter  than  a  fingle  Grain  of  Tnath  j  which  will 
further  appear,  when  his  following  Afiertions  are  exami- 
ned---the  firft  of  which  is,  *  That  the  Infant  Seed  of 
'  Church  Members    were   once  By  divine  Appointment 

*  taken  into  Covenant  with  their  Parents,  had  the  then 
'  Seal  of  it  apply'd  to  them,  and  fo  were  Members  of  the 

*  viiible  Church.' 

Reply.  Our  Opponents  and  we  feem  to  be  agreed  in 
our  Septiments  about  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  when  they 
fay,  that  the  Covenant  of  Grace  was  made  with  Chrift, 
as  the  fecond  Adam,  and  in  him  with  all  the  Ele(5t,  as 
his  Seed,  f  What  a  Pity  then  it  is.  that  we  can't  have 
the  fame  determinate  Idea's  fefpe«Sting  the  Covenant 
(mentioned  in  this  Aflertion)  and  iu  bring  this  unpleafant 
Controverfy,  to  its  much  defired  and  final  Period.  But 
the  Cafe  is  yet  otherwife  ;  for  Mr.  F.  alTerts,  That  the 
pure  Covenant  of  Grace  was  made  with  Abraham  and  his 
Seed.  And  feme  other  Gentleman  (to  help  on  the  Caufe 
of  Infant- Baptifm  to  be  fure)  has  lately  prii  ted,    '  That 

*  it  was   truly  the  Covenant  of  Grace  made  with  Abra- 

*  ham,  on  Behalf  of  himfelf,  and  both  his  Natural  and 
'  Spiritual  Seed,  both  Jews  and  Gentiles.'X  How  our 
Opponents  do  to  underftand   their  abovefaid  Affertiona 

B  con- 

f  Vid.  AJJimblfi  Larger  Catechifm.  Queft.  31.         %  A  Dialogue  betweeo 

*  Minifter  and  one  of  his  Pariftiioners,  entitled  Divine  Rigbt  of  Infant- Baf' 
tifm,    PrJntcJ  at  New -York.  J  746.  Pajs  i6s 


C    i8    ) 

confident  with  themfelves,  or  with  the  Truth  of  Things,- 
and  at  the  fame  Time  fuppofe  tlie  Point  they  plead  for  is 
eftablifhed,  undoubtedly  is  an  Art  peculiar  to  themfelves  ; 
for  the  Covenant  of  Grace  comprehends  all  Believers  in 
it  :  What  odd  Divinity  would  it  be  to  teach  that 
every  Believer  is  not  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  but  that 
Covenant  made  with  Abraham  (of  which  Circumcifion 
was  a  Token)  did  not  comprehend  every  Believer  in  it, 
•which  lived  even  in  the  Days  of  Abraham^  as  is  moft  evi- 
dent from  Scripture?  Shem,  Melchixedeck  snd  Lot,  who 
•were  true  Believers,  yet  were  never  admitted  into  Abra- 
ham's Covenant  by  Circumcifion-— Surely  they  muft  have 
a  ftrange  Turn  of  Thought,  who  fay,  ^h^i  Abraham's 
Covenant  was  a  pure  Covenant  of  Grace,  in  the  Manner 
our  Opponents  plead  for  ;  and  then  aflert,  as  Mr.  F. 
does  (unlefs  he  fhamefully  equivocates)  Out  £/"Abraham'j. 
Covenant  there  is  no  Salvation.  According  to  this  AfTer- 
tion  I  would  afk  him,  What  became  of  thofe  above-men- 
tioned Godly  Men,  who  were  not  in  Abraham's  Cove- 
nant, nor  had  the  Seal  of  it  ffo  called)  adminiftred  to- 
them  ?  Did  they  go  to  Hell  and  perifti  ?  By  no  means. 
Were  they  faved  ?  Yes.  Wy  the  Covenant  of  Works  ? 
No.  How,  by  the  pure  Covenant  of  Grace  made  with- 
Abraham  ?  No,   for  they  were  not  in  it. 

And  out  of  Abraharr'^  Covenant,  there  is  no  Salvati- 
on. How  then  ?  Why,  to  unlock  this  Riddle  Mr.  F. 
may,  if  he  pleafes,  ufe  his  ovon^\  and  Mr.  FlaveN  Key. 

'They    could   neither  be  juftified  nor  condemned  \n 

*  this  Life.  Juftified  they  could  not  be,  for  they  were 
^  out  of  Abraham' sQoven^nt :  Condemned  they  could  not 

*  be,    for  they  were  righteous  Perfons.     But  this  is  not 

*  all  ;  in  the  World  to  come  they  could  neither  go  to 
'  Heaven  nor  Hell  :    To  Heaven  they  could  not  go,  be- 

*  caufe  out  of  Abraham's  Covenant  :    To  Hell  they  could 

*  not  go,  becaufe  juftified.  But  ftill  it  is  more  v/onderful 
'  to  confider,    that  they  muft  be  fully  juftified,    and  fully 

*  condemned  at  the  fame  Time  :    Fully  juftified,  becaufe 

*  the  Scripture  fays  as  much  ;  fully  condemned,  becaufe 
*out  of  the  Covenant  made  with  Abraham*     Now  all 

thefe 
■\.  Charitablt  PJea.    Page  35, 


(    19    ) 

thefe  are  plain  Abfurdities,  yet  they  natively  follow  froni 
Mr.  Finlefs  Affertions,  in  his  charitable  Plea;  therefore 
his  AfTertions  are  abfurd.     But  feeing  there  was  Salvation 
to  thofe  Godlv  Perfons— There  is  Room  enoi.g^h  for  us 
to  oppofe  our  Opponent's  Arguments,  and  ftill  affirm  the 
Covenant  of  Grace  was  mciHe  with  Chrift  only  on  Behalf 
of  others,    Jong  before  Abraham  was  born--  that  it  was 
revealed  to  him,  ^c.    For  the  Scripture  fpeaks  of  but  two 
crowned  Heads,  or  publ.ck  Perfons,  as  Covenant  Heads, 
jn  Behalf  of  others,    viz.     The  f5rft  Adam,    with  whom 
the  Covenant  of  Works  was  made  ;    and  the  Second  A- 
dam,  the  Lcrd  from  Heaven,    with  whom  the  Covenant 
of  Grace  was  made  :    And  for  our  Opponents  to  fy,    the 
Covenant  of  Grace  was  made  with  Ab-aham  on  Behalf  of 
others,  is  an  AfTertion  which  does  not  concur  very  well 
With  Holy  Scripture  !   Befides,  what  an  odd  fhapcd  Cove- 
nant does  Mr.  F.  repiefent  the  Covenant  of  Grace  to  be  ; 
according   to    him,    fome  Beiievers  or  gracious  Perfons 
mult  be  left  out,    and  fome  carnal  unregenerate  Ones  ta- 
Icen  in  !    for  he  affirms,    that  all  Church  Members  and 
their  Seed  are  m  Covenant,  but  not  all  in  it  favingly. 

How  weak  and  inconclufive  alfo  does  the  Argument 
irom  Abraha?n-s  Covenant  appear  to  be,  to  prove  tnfant- 
Baptifm  ;  for  if  gracious  Men,  who  lived  in  the  Days  of 
Mraham,  were  not  circumcifed,  becaufe  God  had  not 
appointed  or  commanded  them,  much  lefs  then  are  the 
carnal  Seed  of  Believers  now  to  be  baptized  without  his 
Command  or  Appointment.  Hence  we  learn  it  was  not 
a  being  ir/ the  Covenant,  that  gave  any  one  a  Warrant 
or  Title  to  Ordinances,  but  the  expreis  Order  and  pofi- 
t.ve  Command  of  God  :  For  Inftance,  Lot  (who  lived 
jn  the  Days  of  Abraham)  was  a  righteous  Man,  and  be- 
yond all  Dou>t   in  the  Covenant  of  Grace  made  with 

fsi  Tx,^^  '^°"^'^  ^^''^  ^^^"  Prefumption  in  him,  and 
an  Adt  of  Will-worfiiip  for  him  to  be  circumcifed,  be- 
caufe God  had  not  commanded  him  :  If  therefore  it  was 
the  Command  of  God  that  made  it  a  Duty  to  circumcife, 
and  gave  any  one  a  warrantableRight  toCircumcifion,  it 
confequently  follows,  for  any  to  be  circumcifed  without 
lueh  a  Commandi  would  have  been  unwsirrantable,  and 

B  2;  V  an 


(  20  ) 
an  A£t  of  Will-worfhip,  which  none  can  think  would 
be  acceptable  to  God  :  The  Application  is  eafy,  fuppo« 
fing  (what  we  grant  not)  that  the  Seed  of  Believers,  as 
fuch,  are  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace  (as  Mr.  F.  urges) 
yet  nothing  fhort  of  God's  Command,  or  exprefs'Order, 
can  entitle  them  to  Baptifm,  or  authorife  him  to  baptize 
them.  Now  feeing  there  is  no  Command  of  God  for 
baptizing  Infants,  that  Pradice  turns  out  unwarrantable, 
and  an  Aft  of  Will-worfhip,  even  when  we  examine  it 
on  the  Grounds  or  Arguments  by  which  our  Opponents 
would  fain  confirm  it. 

If  it  be  ftill  argued  from  the  antiquated  Law  of  Cir- 
Cumcilion,  that  Infants  were  formerly  circumcifed,  and 
they  ought  now  to  be  baptized  ;  I  anfwer.  The  Cafes 
are  not  at  all  parallel  ;  for  befides  other  DifFerences,  there 
was  God's  Command  for  the  former,  but  not  fo  for  the 
latter  ;  and  this  ought  with  modeft  Perfons,  to  make  a 
wide  Difference  :  Tho'  Mr.  F.  hath  Confidence  enough 
to  make  light  of  God's  pofitive  Command,  and  exprefs 
Order,  as  an  indifferent  Thing,  when  he  alTerts,  '  We 
'  have  as  good  Ground  as  he,  *    (i.  e.  to  admit  Infants 

*  to  Baptifm,  as  Abrahamh^^  to  circumcife  them)  for  we 

*  have  the  very  fame  Covenant.'  'Tis  plain  that  Abra- 
ham  had  the  exprefs  Order  of  God  to  circumcife  Infants : 
But  'tis  after  a  Manner  confefTed  by  Mr.  F.  fwhich  is 
even  fo)  that  God  hath  given  no  Command  or  Order  to 
baptize  them  ;  and  yet  he  fays  they  have  as  good  Ground 
for  the  latter,  as  Abraham  had  for  the  former.  I  have 
already  (hewn  that  an  Intereft  in  the  Covenant  did  not 
entitle  Perfons  to  an  Ordinance,  but  the  Order  of  God  ; 
or  elfe  why  was  not  Lot  (and  others^  circumcifed  ?  Even 
fuppofing  Infants  to  be  in  the  Covenant,  yet  they  are  not 
to  be  baptized  for  the  Reafon  abovefaid.  And  that  ano- 
nymous Author,  out  of  the  abundance  of  his  Affurance, 
without  blufhing,  alfo  fays,  f  *  The  Cafe  is  exaaly  the  fame, 
'  without  any  Difference.'  I  am  even  furprized  at  our 
Opponents,  that  they  can  prefume  to  talk  at  this  Rate^t 
Is  the  exprefs  Order  of  God  nothing  in  thefe  Gentlemen's 

^  Eflcero  I 

*  Page  65.        f  Divine  Right  «f  Infant  Baptifm,  P»ge  JS- 


Efteem  ?    Is  this  their  Method  of  treating  God's  -^ofitive 
Commands,  That  they  have  as  good  Ground  to  proceed 
VMthoutthem,  zs  Abraham  or  others  with  them  ?    How 
fliocking  muft  this  be  to  pious  and  confcient.ous  M.nds  ! 
For  (hame,   let  perpetual  Darknefs  fully  thefe  prefump- 
tuous  Line;  of  infatuated  Zeal !   Let  a  Pen.tential  Recan- 
tation heal  this  deadly  Stab  given  to  the  Caufe  of  Prote- 
ftant  Principles  !    How  would  the  exalted  Chernhirm   ot 
Glory  hlujh  to  hear  their  AfTertion  ?    Nay  they  would  re- 
iea  it  with  the  fwifteft  Abhorrence;  who  do  nothmg 
without,  but  always  hearken   to  the  Commandments  of 
God.  Pfal  103.  20.  Pray  what  makes  any  Thing  to  be 
a  Duty,    but  the  Order  and  Command  of  God  ?     Why 
were  ihe  degenerate  Jetvs  of  old  fo  feverely    threatened 
and  punifhed,  but  becaufe  they  did  that  which  God  com- 
manded them  not?     It  does  no  ways  appear   ihat  they 
have  as  good  Ground  to  baptize  their  Infants,  ^^  Abra- 
ham had  to  circumcife  his.    And  further,  I  am  quite  free 
to  fay,   our  Opponents  can  never  make  their  Affertions 
good  ;  for  there  is  an  eternal  Difference  betwixt  what  God 
has  ordered  and  commanded^  and  what  he  has  not. 

Again,  it  is  very  obfervable,  that  the  Authar  of  the 
Whole  Duty  of  Man,  in  his  Reprefentation  of  the  Cove- 
nant of  Grace,  hath  been  openly  and  P"bl>ckly  condem- 
ned by  the  Rev.  and  efteemed  Gentlemen  Mr.  Whttefield, 
and  Mr.  Blair.  §  Let  us  compare  our  Opponents  Ac- 
count of  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  and  that  Author  sAc^ 
count  of  it  together,  and  fee  how  near  they  agree.  The 
Author  of  the  Whole  Duty  of  Man  faith,  This  fecond 
'  Covenant  was  MADE  with  Adam  and  us  in  hini, 
<■  prefently  after  his  fall,  and  is  briefly  contain'd  in  thefe 
?  Words  Gen.  3.  15.  where  God  declares  that  the  Seed  of 
«    the  Woman  fhall  break  the  Serpent's  Head.     And  this 

*  was  made  up  as  the  firft  was  of  fome  Mercies  to  be  af- 
?  forded  by  God,  and  fome  Duties  to  be  performed  by  us. 

Where  is  the  mighty  Difference  ?  That  Author  fays 
the  fecond  Covenant  was  made  with  Adam,  and  our  Op- 
ponents fav.  That  the  pureCovenantof  Grace  was  made 

*  B  3  '^'^^^ 

§    Confideratios  of  the  Querifts,  page  »4>  *?«» 


(     ^^    ) 


y^ithJhrabam-  Why?  herein  there  is  but  h'ttle  odds  • 
both  agree  the  Covenant  of  Grace  was  made  w  h  Man* 
tbo'  they  don't  juftly  hit  on  the  fame  Perfor,.  That  An' 
thor  rumates  that^./.;„  was  a  publick  Head  n  he  fL" 
cond  Covenant,  when  he  f.y,  ic  .^as  W.  W.  us„l^ 
Our  Opponents  very  cordj.lly  join  him  herea^ain  whrri 
n  fo  many  Words  they  ^mJ^  ^  That  .t  wa^ tr^W  the 
Covenant  of  Grace  made  wiLh^^.^^,,,,  on  Behalf  of 

<  Wal^^6t'f  >'%^r^^^"^  ^A-WSe"d?b;t°h 
:.  pZ-  l"i^"''^''-      f^oil^  agree  that  a  mere  Man  was 
a  Puihci  Head  ,n  the  Covenant  of  Grace.     Again    Tc 
o.rd.ng  to   vhat  Author's   Plan,    there  ^ere JomfMerVu, 
to  be  afforded  hy  God    and  form  Duties  to  he  peiformed  yu 

i  nat  ^W.«;..s  Pol^enty  enjoy 'd  thesAME  PriviJe 

Z;W.    and  W„.,/,,  in  tne  Church,  as  himself 

;  ajd,  unt,l  by  .^..Degeneracy  fnmc  of  them  were  brok' n 

r  h  u  ^'  /'7''  ^'"''^  ''''''  ^"0-  on  their  Part,  they  for- 
fated  the:r  Rrght  ^n  the  Covenant,  and  ^-ere  e.^uJlL, 
the  Number  of  the  Covenanted  People.  Which  well  a^Ce^ 
w.th  that  legal  Author's  Notion,%f>.  Dutkst  lYpeH 
formed  by  us.     Now,  if  our  Opponents  are  ri.ht  in  their 

^'r "wK^rn '^^"^r^"^  °^^race.  To  was^the  Autho 
pUhe  Whole  Duty  of  Man,  and  he  mufl  have  been  un- 
j.%  conderrined  ;  unlefs  our  Opponents  think  that  fame 
Doarme  to  be  Truth  in  them,    which  was  condemned 
as  an  Error  in  hun  :    But  as  he  was  unfound  and  corrupt 
in  his  No  .ons  ot  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  fo  arc  our  Op- 
ponents a  fo  ;     and  their  Notions  deferve  to   be  feverely 
pnfured  (.f  they  had  Jurtice  done  them)  as  being    very 
coi^rupt,   and  highly  difhonourable  to  the  Plan  of  Grace 
a^d  Salvation  :    For  accordmg  to  them,  a  mere  Man,  as 
Mraham  was,  ^beyond  the  Bounds  of  Truth  and  Sober- 

?e.td  rr     r'>°''".'"^  ^^  ^•■^^^  ^'^^^  n^i^^epre- 

^'red.    and   funk  down  below  its    proper  Dignity  and 
G.,ry,    afTertii.g   .t  to   be  made  with  Man  on  Behalf  of 
I    M     ??  %^^^^^^^'^^^^y  in  itfclf  fubjea  to  Mutability 
as  Man  (the  Party)  was.     And  indeed  God  the  Author 
>vho  putteth  no  Truj?  in  his  Saints,  muft  be  fuppofcd  ^o  aft 
mconliflent  wich  himielf,  to  entru(i  a  feeble  Creature  as 


(     23     ) 

Man  with  fuch  weighty  Concerns.  Befides,  this  Repre- 
sentation ferves  to  puff  up  carnal  Creatures  to  the  very 
Pinnacle  of  Pride,  when  their  Leaders  tell  them  that  they 
and  their  Children  are  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace.  In  a 
Word,  what  a  confus'd  Notion  of  the  Covenant  of  Grace 
is  given  by  our  Opponents,  tending  to  lead  People  away 
from  this  fundamental  Truth,  viz.  That  the  Covenant 
of  Grace  was  made  only  with  Chrifl:  (as  a  publick  Head) 
on  Behalf  of  others.  Which  glorious  Truth  is  conflantly 
and  firmly  to  be  maintain'd  againfl  all  the  falfe  Infmua- 
tions  and  corrupt  Affertions  of  our  Oppofer^. 

Before  I  difmifs  th^'s  Point,  ^tis  proper  I  fhould  take 
more  particular  Notice  of  this  Affertion,  viz.  '  That  it 
*■  was  truly  the  Covenant  of  Grace  made  with  Abraham 
'  on  Behalf  oih\mk\i^  and  both  his  Natural  and  Spiritual 
*  Seed,  both  Jeius  and  G entile s,'  Our  Opponents  muft 
necefTarily  mean  either  Typically  or  Aolually,  But  I  caa 
in  no  wife  as  yet  perfuade  myfelf  they  mean  the  Covenant 
of  Grace  was  made  with  Abraham^  on  Behalf  of  his  Seed, 
Typitally,  i.  e,  Th2.t  Abraham  was  a  Typical  Head  of 
Chrift  ;  The  Covenant  made  with  him  a  lyplcal  Cove- 
nant of  that  made  with  Chrifl  ;  becaufe  fuch  a  Senfe 
would  make  fo  muchagainfl  themfelves  in  what  they  are 
now  fo  much  pleading  for  ;  and  thereby  they  would  do  the 
Bufincfs  for  themfelves  efFedually  at  once,  to  prove  Abra- 
karri's  Covenant  to  be  repeal'd  ;  For  all  will  grant,  that 
the  Old  Teilament  Types,  Figures,  and  Shadows,  were 
abolifhed,  when  Chrift  the  Antitype  of  them  all  was  exhi- 
bited ;  and  amongft  the  reft,  Abraham^  Covenant,  upon 
this  Suppofition.  Then  we  mufi  look  for  a  new  Cove- 
nant, as  well  as  new  Church  Canilitution,  and  new  Or- 
dinances, Commands,  and  Directions,  fuited  to  New 
Teftament  Times  ;  which  would  cut  olFall  their  Plea  for 
Infant  Baptifm,  from  Abrahanis  Covenant.  Therefore 
it  remains  that  they  mean  the  Covenant  of  Grace  was  ac- 
tually, truly,  and  properly,  tnade  with  Abraham  on  Be  H  A  L  F 
of  himfelf,  and  both  his  Natural  and  Spiritual  Seed.  'Tis 
even  furpnzing  that  any  Man  who  calls  himi^eli  zChriJliany 
much  more  a  Minijlery  would  offer  to  publifh  in  the  Face 
of  the  World  at  this  Time  of  Day,  fuch  an  abfurd  Poji- 
B  4  tisn^ 


(      24      ) 

fion,  pregnant  with  intolerable  Falflioods  :    For  Inftance 
I.  Let   our  Opponents   fhew   what  Man  that  was   wit^ 
whom  God  made  the  Covenant  of  Grace  (as  a  publick 
Perfon)    on  Behalf  of  others,     but   with   the  God-Man, 
Christ  Jesus. 

2.  Let  them  fhew  how  Ahraho7n  could  be  a  publick 
Head  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  without  juftling  Chrift 
out  of  his  Office,  or  elfe  hold  two  publick  Heads'^in  one 
Covenant,  equal  ot  fubord'tnate -y  which  would  be  mon- 
ftruoufly   abfurd. 

3.  U  the  Covenant  of  Grace  was  made  with  Abraham^ 
on  Behalf  of  his  Natural  and  Spiritual  Seed,  let  them 
ihew  what  Seed  is  allotted  to  Chrifl,  or  by  what  Name 
are  they  to  be  called  ?  And  further,  what  Concern  can 
we  fuppofe  Chrift  to  have  with  thofe  which  belong  to 
another  Covenant  Head  ?  unlefs  it  be  only  to  give  them 
Strength  to  fulfil  their  Duty  on  their  Part,  to  prevent 
their  Degeneracy. 

4.  Let  them  further  declare  to  the  World  how  the  Co- 
venant of  Grace  could  be  made  with  Abraham  on  Behalf 
of  others,  when  he  had  no  Grace  to  con)municate  or  im- 
part to  them,  which  a  publick  Head  ought  to  have  r 

It  would  be  well  for  thefe  Men  who  are  fo  bri/k  to 
charge  us  with  Errors,  and  holding  dangerous  Prmciples, 
firll  to  cafl  out  the  Beam  out  of  their  own  Eyes  before 
they  attempt  to  caft  out  the  Mote  out  of  ours.  And  if 
there  were  any  hopes  that  they  would  fee  their  Mi /lake 
at  all,  it  might  be  here  in  the  Foundation  of  their  whole 
Stiuaure,  where  it  is  fo  vifible  and  palpable,  that  it  is  a 
Wonder  how  they  do  to  get  along  without  {tumbling  on 

The  pure  Covenant  of  Grace  was  made  with  Chrift 
only  (as  a  Publick  Head)  on  Behalf  of  others,  long  enough 
before  Abraham^  Day  ;  and  it  was  reveal'd  or  manifefted 
to  Adam^  Abraham^  David,  &c.  in  fuch  Wavs  and  Mea- 
fures  as  God  thought  proper  :  And  not  any'  of  the  Seed 
of  Abraham  were  inter efied  in  it,  by  their  being  the  Seed 
oi  Abraham,  but  by  Regeneration,  Rom.  4.  12.  And  as 
to  Abraham's  carnal  Seed,  who  liv'd  and  dy'd  in  a  State 
of  Nature,    were  th^y  any  farther   impriviledg'd  at  the 

mofi 


(     25     ) 

moft,  but  only  to  partake  of  thofe  Ordinances  appointed 
ol  God,  during  the  Continuance  of  that  daik,  legal,  and 
typical  Difpenfation  ?  which  is  very  difFsient  from  their 
being  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace  :  And  if  this  is  all  that 
is  iniended  by  their  oeing  viftble  In  the  Covenant  of  Grace^ 
it  will  do  our  Opponents  no  great  Service,  becaufe  that 
Adminiftrauon  is  aboliilied,  together  with  the  Ordinances 
then  in  Ufe  :  And  we  no  where  find  it  to  be  the  Will 
of  God,  for  Infants  to  be  no  v  baptized,  as  they  were 
formerly  circumcis'd.  And  thus  accounting  for  it,  our 
Opponents  would  prevent  their  falling  into  fuch  Abfurdi- 
ties  and  Miftakes  about  this  Matter,  as  they  generally  do 
in  the  Way  they  go  on. 

After  Mr.  F.  has  cited  fome  Places  of  Scripture  which 
he  imagines  make  for  his  Purpofe,  he  enquires  at  the 
Clofeof  the  Paragraph,  '  Who  can  be  fo  hardy  as  to  fay 
f  all  thefe  Scriptures  are  now  repeal'd  ?'  Anf.  We  profefs 
'tisajuil  Debt  we  owe  to  the  Publick,  to  obferve  that 
thefe  Citations  don't  prove  what  they  are  here  brought 
for  ;  becaufe  it  feems  by  him,  that  Infants  Church-Mem- 
berfoip  muil  ftand  or  fall  together  with  thefe  Places  of 
Scripture  :  So  that  if  we  be  fo  hardy  as  to  fay  that  Infants 
are  not  in  Covenant  together  with  their  believing  Pa- 
rents, we  muft  confequently  affirm  all  thefe  Texts  to  be 
repealed.  Not  at  all  ;  for  'tis  manifeft  the  Places  which 
he  refers  to  (unlefs  Deut.  20.  9,  io)  fpeak  of  the  fpecial 
Work  of  God  upon  the  Souls  of  his  Eled  People,  or  pro- 
mife  fome  peculiar  and  faving  Benefits  to  them,  pertaining 
only  to  the  Spiritual  Seed  :  But  m  none  of  them  is  it 
afertedox  implied  that  the  natural  Offspring  of  Believers, 
as  fuch,  are  in  xhQ  pure  Covenant  of  Grace.  Now,  did 
we  ever  denv  the  Seed  ox  Offspring  of  Believers,  who  are 
chofen  and  called  of  God.  *  Deut.  lO.  15.  jujiificd  by 
Chri/i.  Pfal.  103.  17.  Partakers  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  Ifa. 
44.  3.  Chap.  59  21.  Deut.  30.  6.  And  this  manifeffed 
by  Good  Works.  Exod.  20.  6.  Accompanied  with  God's 
fpecial  Care  over  them,  &c.  Pfahn  102.  28.  Prov.  ii. 
21.  To  be  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace  as  well  as  their  be- 
lieving 

*  Thafe  are  the  Text«  Mr.  F,  refers  to,    for  Proof  of  Infants  being  i? 
tb?  Covenant  of  Grace. 


C      26      j 
lievins:  Parents  ?    Nay,  we  are  freely  willing  to  baptize 
the  Offspring  of  Believers  upon  God's  fulfilling  thefe  Pro- 
mift-sto  them  ;   becaufe  it  exaflly  agrees  with  the  l^nor 
of  the  Commifllon  :     He  that  believeth  is  to  be  baptized. 
And  with    the  Praaice  of  the   Apoftles  ;    Can  any  Man 
forbid  IVater^    that  thefe  fhould  net  be  baptized  which  have 
received  the  Holy  Ghoft  as  well  as  we  ?  Acts  x.    47 .     What 
then  wouW  he  prove  from  thefe  Texts  ?    Do  thefe  Places 
prove   that   ths  Seed  or  Offspring  of   Believers  were  any 
otherwife  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace  formsrly,  but  by  the 
fpecial  Operation  of  the  Spirit  of  God  upon  their  Souls  ? 
or  any  Thing  as  to  Infants  Right  to  Bapcifm  now  ?    No  : 
Why  then  we  have  fufficieiic  Ground  to  deny  the  Affer- 
tions  of  our  Opponent?,  without  juftling  thofe  above-quo- 
ted Scriptures  out  of  their  Places.  h%xo  Deut.  xxix.  10.  it 
fpeaks  of  the  Covenant  God  made  with  the  y/r^^/z'/^jat  their 
Return  out  of  Egypt  ;  which,  beyond  all  Contradidion,   is 
^oneaway,   and  long  fince  aboliflied,    Jer.  xxxi.  31,  32. 
i/<?^.  viii.   8      So  that  Mr.  Fs  Suggeftion   here,    and  his 
Aflertion  elfewhere,  That  we  Repeal  a  great  Part  of  the 
Old  Teflament  which  God  has  not  repeaVd^  is  Groundlefs, 
and  evidently  a  falfe  Accufation. 

This  leads  me  diredly  to  confider  Mr.  F\  Second  ge- 
neral Flead  ;  which  is.  Whether  God  has  ever  repealed  the 
afcrefaid  Jppointment  ? 

Anfw.  Having  already  clear'd  our  Way  fo  far,  all 
that'  is  neceflary  for  us  here  to  affirm,  is.  That  the  Jew- 
ffi  Oiconomy  is  at  an  End  :  That  the  Legal  Admini- 
itration  is  aboJifhed  ;  or  that  the  Appointtnent  of  God,  for 
Infants  to  partake  of  any  Ordinance,  is  repealed,  or  ra- 
ther fulfilled. 

That  Infants  are  not  now  the  Subjefts  of  Baptifm,  as 
the  Jezvijh  Infants  were  of  Circumcifion,  is  clear  and 
manifeft  ;  for  even  at  the  very  Dawn  of  the  New  Tefta- 
Bient  Adminiftration  (where  we  have  the  firft  Account 
of  this  facred  Ordinance  of  Baptifm)  John,  theFore-iun- 
ner  of  Chrift,  conftantly  required  Faith,  Repentance 
and  Confeffion  of  Sins  in  Order  to  Baptifm.  A^ark  i.  4, 
5,  John  did  baptize  in  the  IVildernefs^  and  preach  the  Bap- 
ifm  of  Repentance  for  the  RemifJionofSins.  And  there  went 

out 


•(     27     ) 
§ut  unto  him  all  the  Land  of  Judea,  and  they  ^Jerufhlcm, 
and  were  all  baptized  of  him,  in  the  River  o/J'Jidan,  con- 
feffing  their  Sins.      Adls  xix.   4.     Then  faid  Paul,    John 
verily  baptizrd  with  the  Baptifm  of  Repentance^  fauvg  unto 
the  People^    That  they  fhould  beheve  on  hi?n  which fhould  come 
after  him^  that  is,  on  Chrijl  Jcfus.   Mat.  iii.  7,  8,  9.   But 
when   he  faw  many  of  the  Pharifees  and  S adduce es  come  to 
his  Baptifm,    he  faid  unto  them^     O    Generation  of  Vipers^ 
who  hath  warned  you  to  flee  from  the  IP  rath  to  come  ?  bring 
forth  therefore  Fruits  meet  for  Repentance.      And  think  not 
to  fay  within  yourfelves,  we  have  Abraham  to  our  Father  : 
Luke  vii.   29,30.      Jnd  all  the  People  that  heard  him,  and 
the  Publicans  jujiified  God,  being  baptised  with  the  Baptifm 
of]o\\x\  ;  but  the  Pharifees  and  Lawyers  rejeSiedthe  Coun- 
fel  of  God  again]}   themfelves^     being  not  baptized  of  him. 
Hence  it  plainly  appears,    John  the   Baptiit  adminilked 
this  Ordinance  to  none,    but  to  thofe  who  profeffed  their 
Faith,  and  made  Confeffion  of  their  Sins.      Howground- 
lefs  therefore   is  the  Plea  from  Birth  Priviiedge  to  prove 
any  One's  Right   to   Baptifm  ;  for  if  the  natural  Off- 
fpring  o{  Abraham  were   not  entituled  to  Baptifm  by  it, 
how  much  lefs  then  are  the  Offspring  of  believing  Gen- 
tiles,   as  fuch,    who  are  not  the  Seed  of  Abraiia.m  '\r\  any 
refpc6t,    to  be  baptized  upon   Account  of  their  Parents, 
Faith,    Church-m.emberfhip,  ^c.    feeing    God    has   no 
where  commanded  it  ;     nor    have  we  any   Inftances  of 
fuch  a  Pradice  in  Scripture.     Mr.  F.  reafons  from  Mat. 
ill.  8,  9.     to  this  Purpofe,  vl%.    '  If  Infants  a^re  intended 

*  in  this  Place,  the  "Words  will  not  only  prove  that  they 

*  are  cut  ofFfrom  Church  Priviledges,   but  that  they  will 

*  all  certainly   be  damned  who  die  in  Infancy— But  if 
'  they  are  not   intended,  to  what  Purpofe  do  they  bring 

the  Text,    fince   it  will   make  nothing  for  them  or  a- 
'  gainft  us,    unlefs  it  fpeak   of  Infants.— And  the'  the 

*  Baptift  deny'd   the  Ordinance  to  grown    wicked  Per- 
'  fons,  yet  his  Words  don't  fhew  that  he  would  not  have 

•^  baptized    both    religious  Parents  and   their   Seed.' 

Anfxu,   Why  then  did  he  conftantly  require  Fruits  meet 
for  Repentance,  in  thofe  that  came  to  be  baptized  of  him  ? 
It  is  eafy  to  guefs  how  mighty  fuch  kind  of  Reafoning  ap- 
pear^ 


C    28    ) 

pears  to  thofe,  who  have  been  a  ways  told  that  Believers 
Infants  are  to  be  baptized  ;  but  it  is  evident  (notwith- 
ftanding  what  is  here  advanced  by  Mr.  F.)  we  have 
Room  fufficient  left  us,  lojiake  down  this  invincible 
Truth,  viz.  That  'fohn  baptized  none  upon  any  other  Con- 
fideration^  but  upon  ConfeJJion  of  their  Sins^  und  Profejfion 
of  Faith ---ii  he  did,  let  our  Opponents  Ihew  us  the 
Scriptures  which  fay  that  he  baptized  Believers  Infants, 
as  being  in  Jbrahanis  Covenant  ;  or  give  us  folid  Rca- 
fons  if  Infants  were  to  be  baptized,  why  they  were  not 
baptized  the  felf-fame  Day  with  their  Parents,  as  Abra^ 
ham  and  his  Houfhold  were  circumcifed.  Gen.  xvii.  26, 
27.  or  at  leaft  foon  after  ?  Did  John  the  Baptiftever  urge 
the  Parents  to  bring  their  Infant  Seed,  in  thefe,  or  fome 
like  Words,  *  All  you   Parents  whom  I  have  baptized, 

*  the  Seal  of  the  Covenant  belongs  to  your  Infant  Seed  alfo 
'  (as  our  Opponents  aliedge)  and  you  are  to  bring  them 
'  to  partake  of  it  ?'  We  deny  any  fuch  Injunftion  ;  prove 
them  who  can.  Mr.  F.  f  himfelf  affirms,  '  That 
'  thofe  Scriptures  (wherein  we  find  Faith  and  Repentance 
'  always  required  in  Order  to  Baptifm  ;  and  thofe  who 
'  were  admitted  to  the  Ordinance,  were  obliged  to  profefs 

*  the  fame,    and  confefs  their  Sins)    are  addreffed  only  to 

*  grown  Perfons,  and  not  Infants.'  Now  feeing  that  ia 
all  the  Places  which  fpeak  of  John's  baptizing,  thefe 
Qtialifications  were  required,  in  order  to  Baptifm  ;  it  ea- 
lily  follows,  that  there  is  no  Ground  to  believe  that  he 
baptized  any  Infants  ;  unlefs  our  Opponents  will  fay,  that 
they  have  as  good  Ground  to  believe  what  is  not  written,  as 
that  which  is  written  ;  as  they  f^y,  that  they  have  zs  good 
Ground  to  baptize  Infants,  which  is  not  commanded,  as  X 
Abraham  had  to  do  vthziwas  commanded :  And  if  fo,  me- 
thinks,  both  their  Faith  and  PraSiice  are  very  ill-ground- 
cd  !  The  Cafe  is  juft  this.  Either  it  was  the  l^i II  and 
Appointment  of  God  that  John  fiiould  baptize  Believers  In- 
fants, or  it  was  not.  If  any  fay  it  was,  they  make  that 
holy  Man  (who  received  his  Miflion  immediately  from 
God)  a  vile  Tranfgreflbr  of  the  divine  Will  and  Ap- 
f ointment  j  but  fuch  an  horrid  Crime  was  never  charg'd 

up- 

■\  Page  64,  65.        J  Page  66. 


(  ^9  ) 
upon  him,  who  was  fo  highly  commended  by  Chrift  him-* 
felf  •  Then  it  remains,  that  it  was  not  the  Will  and  Ap- 
pointment of  God,  for  him  to  baptize  Behevers  Infants. 
And  how  much  this  falls  ftiort  of  proving  that  God  haih 
repeal'd  the  aforefaid  Appointment,  I  ftiail  leave  to  ouf 
Opponents  themlelves,  to  determine  at  their  Leifure. 

'   Another  Scripture    (fays  he)     in  which  the  Anabap- 
«  tifts  triu?nph,    (as  tho'  it  proved  a  Repeal  of  the  Cove- 
*  nant  made  with  Mrahafn)    is,  Heb.  viii.   7,    8,  9,  10, 
13.     For  if  the  firji  Covenant   had  been  faultlefs,    then 
Jho'uld  no  Place  have  been  /ought  for  the  Second.     For  find- 
ing Fault  with  them,    he  faith.     Behold,    the  Days  come 
(faith  the  Lord)    when  I  will  make  a  New- Covenant  witty 
the  Houfe  <j/Ifrael,  and  the  Houfe  0/ Judah  :    Not  accord- 
ing to  the  Covenant  that  I  made  with  their  Fathers  in  the 
Day  when  I  took  them  by  the  Hand  to  lead  them  out  of  the 
Land  o/Egypt  ;  becaufe  they  continued  not  in  tny  Covenant^ 
and  I  regarded  them  not,  faith  the  Lord.     For  this  is  the  Co- 
venant that  I  will  make  with  the  Houje  of  Ifrael  after  thofe 
Days,  faith  the  Lord  ;   I  will  put  my  Laws  into  their  Mind, 
and  write  them  in  their  Hearts  :    And  I  will  be  to  them 
a  God,  and  they /ball  be  to  me  a  People.-— In  that  he  faith, 
A  New  Covenant,  he  hath  made  the  firJi  Old.     Now  that 
which  decay eth  and  waxeth  old,   is  ready  to  vanijh  away. 

Truly  after  all  Mr.  Fs  Clamour  about  onr  falfe  Gloffcs 
upon  this  Place,    he  hath  left  us  triumphing  as  he  found 
us  ;     if  any  Thing,    he  has  augmented  the  Caufe  of  our 
Triumph  :    We  here  fee  how  forcible  are  right  Words.     And 
if  his  Arguments  have   any  Weight    in    them,    he  juft 
proves  what  the  Baptifts  never  deny'd,  viz.  That  all  true 
Believers  were  in    the  Covenant  of  Grace  made  with 
Chrift,  before  his  Incarnation,  as  well  as  they  be  fir.ce  j 
which  is  confirmed  by  that  very  Place  he  cites,    Deut. 
XXX.  6.   But  this  is  not  our  prefent  Bulinefs,  for  our  De- 
bate is  not  about  the  Spiritual  Seed-Tho'  our  Opponents 
don't  diftinguifh  one  Thing  from  another,  as  they  ought 
to   do.     Mr.  F.    in  the  Profecution  of  his  Argument 
here  in  favour  of  his  Praaice,    runs  himfelf  into  inextri- 
cable Abfurdities  5    for  his  Drift  is,    to  prove  that  this 
New-Covenant,   mentioned   in   Heb.    viii.   is  the  fame 

that 


(    30    ) 

that  yfhrabajt   Mo/es  and  I/rael,  were  under  in  the  Wil- 
dernefs;andthendirea)yuponit.  tells  us,   that  bv   (New 
Covenant^)  we  muft  underltand,   <  A  new  Adminiftraion 
^  ot  the  Covenant,  which  obtains  under  the  New-Tefta- 
ment.'     Can  he  imagine  then,     that  ^/;/W^^;;;,    Mofes 
and  I/rael,  m  the  W.ldernefs,  were  un?ler  this  New-Co- 
venant,   ashehimfelf  underftands  it  ?   Does  not  he  well 
^now     that  the  New   Covenant    thus  underftood,    took 
Place  long  after  their  Day  ?     And  why  then  would  he  go 
about  to  impofe  upon  his  unwary  Readers,   by  pretending 
to  prove  that   Jl,raha;r,    Afofes  and   Ifrael,    were   undeT 
ntn  P  "^  Covenant  ;  which  canno.  be,  according  to  his 
ojvn  Rule  of  Interpretation  ?     And  if  he  underftands  by 

lelS^rr'   '  u  ^'^-  '''■•   '^''  ^'"^  AJm.niftration, 
^e  might  be  fure  that  we  would  follow  his  Rule,    if  it  is 
good,  and  fay,  that  by  the  Old  Covenant  we  muft  un- 
T.   nun^a""^^  Adminiftration  which  obtained  under 
tne   Old  Teftament-.-which  was   m.de  with  Ifrae/  at 
their  Return  out  of  Egypt,    and   according  to  Mr   F    ij 
the  fame  that  wa.  made  with  ^^r^W,...  when  he  calls  it 
ff^^^^'scrljrael's   Covenant:    Now  it   is  plain  from 
this  Place  of  Scripture,  that  the  Old  Covenant  is  abolifh- 
ed,  and  fo  is  Infants  Church-memberfliip,   or  their  Rioht  ' 
to  Circumcifion,    together  with  it— And  Mr.  Fs  Bufi- 
nefs  on  this  Head,    if  he  had  done  any  Thing   to    Pur- 
pofe,  was  to  fliew  us  that  Infants  are  the  Subjeas  of  Bap- 
turn  under  tne  New  Covenant  thus  underftood,  which  he 
has  not  done,    and  I  am   ftill  of  the  Mind   never  can  ; 
inltead  of  going  to  prove  that  Abraham  and  Tfrael  were 
under   tnis  New   Covenant   thus  confidered  ;    for,    ac- 
cording   to     his    own  Interpretation,     everv  one  muft 
icnow  his  AfTertion  to  be  evidently  falfe.     And  if  it  is  fo' 
criminal  ,n  the  Anabaptifts  (as  he  calls  us)  to  urge  this 
1  lace  to  krve  their  Purpofe,   Why  did  Mr.  F.  give  us  his 
helping  Hand  fo  cordially,  to  faften  us  in  our  Belief  that 
the  aforefAid  Appomtment  is  long  fince  at  an  End  ?    Let 
Mr.  A  Anfwerus;  Did  he  ever  read  of  Infants  Right  to 
any  Ordinance  in  the  Church  fince  the  New  Covenant 
(as  he    interprets  it)    took   place  ?     Upon    the  Whole, 
^'hctner  he  will  or  no,  the  Baptifts,    according  to  his 


own 


(     31     ) 

own  Rule,  will  come  ofF,  not  only  free  from  his  Cenfures, 
but  appear  to  be  quite  Right  on  this  Head.  And  he  muft 
know,  that  hehimfelfhas  rendered  all  his  Reafonin^s  in 
Favour  of  his  Practice  from  this  Place,  entirely  incon- 
clufive. 

Mr.  F.  fays  there  is  another  Scripture  which  the  Ana- 
baptifts  fadly  abufe  to  their  Purpofc,  viz.    Rom.  ix.   7,  8. 
Neither  becatife  they  are  the  Seed  c/"  Abraham,  are  they  cH 
Children  ;  hut  in  Ifa^cJJjall  thy  Seed  he  called  :     That  is^ 
they  which  are  the  Children  of  the  Flejl).,  thefe  are  not  the 
Children  of  God  ;     hut   the  Children   of  the  Promife   are 
counted  for  the  Seed.     After  Mr.  F.  has  propofed  feveral 
Q^jeftions  from  thefe  Words,    he  gives  us  Liberty  to  try- 
how  we  can  fuit  it  at  all  to  our  Purpofe.      With  his  Leave 
then  we'll  proceed,    and   I  think  the  Bufinefs  to  be  no 
difficult  Tafk  neither.     'Tis  evident  from  thefe  Words, 
that  none,  whether  Jews  or  Gentiles^  are  counted  the  Spi- 
ritual Seed,    but  true  Believers  only.     Now  methinks  all 
will  grant,    that  the  Infant  Seed   of  Believing  Gefitiles  are 
not  Abrahatn\  fiefhly  Seed  ;  and  Mr.  F.   in  his  Diftinc- 
tions  does  not  undertake  to  fliew  that  they  are  his  Spiritual 
Seed  :    Then   it  follows  that  the  Infant  Seed   of  Gentile 
Believers,    as  fuch,  are  not  the  Seed  of  Abraham  in  any 
Refped:  at  all.     The  Confequence   is  then  unavoidable, 
that  they  are  not,  as  fuch,  theSubjed  of  any  Promife  gi- 
^vento  the  Seedof^^r^^^w.     'Tis  therefore  abundantly 
evident,    that  the  Infants  of  Gentile  Believers  cannot  be 
baptized  by  Vertue  of  any  Promife  given  to  the  Seed    cf 
Abraham.,  becaufe  they  are  not  included  in  it  :    So  thaC 
inftead  of  abufing  this  Scripture,    our  Inferences  are  na- 
tural and  genuine,    and  muft  continue  fo,  unlefs  Mr.  F. 
can  make  appear  that  the  Infants  of  Gentile  Believers  are 
Abraham^  Seed  in  either  of  the  two  aforementioned   Re- 
fpeds ;  for  in  a  Third  they  can't  be.   Thus  you  fee,  that  if 
Infants  are  to  be  baptized,  it  muft  be  by  fome  other  Grant 
than  the  Charter  given  to  the  Seed  oi  Abraham  ;    for  thaff 
does  not  reach  them  ;    and  we  find  no  Inftitution  for  it 
in  the  Gofpel  ;    therefore  they  are  not  the  Subjects  of 
Baptifm.     To  imagine  as  our  Opponents  do,  That  Belie- 
irsrs  Infants  are  now  to  be  baptized,  as  Abraham's,  was  cir- 

cum- 


(    32    ) 
Cumcifed,  is  their  great  Miftake  j    and  'tis  ftill  to  take 
that  for  granted,  which  (hould  be  proven. 

It  feems  Mr.  F.  was  apprehenfive  of  fome  Difficulty  in 
his  Way,  and  accordingly  endeavours  to  obviate  fome 
Objedtions.  *  Will  they  fay  we  have  no  Ground  for  a 
'  Judgment  of  Charity    concerning   the  Spiritual  Seed, 

*  but  only  a  vifible  credible  Piofeflion  of  Faith.  I  an* 
'  fwer  (faith  he)    was  this  the  Method  formerly  ufed  to 

*  judge  of  the  Right  of  Jhraha/n's  Seed   to  the  imitating 

*  Seal  of  the  Covenant  ?  To  this  I  reply  :  The  Method 
they  were  to  follow  under  the  Law,  was  to  circumcife 
every  Male  Child  at  Eight  Days  old,  according  to  the 
exprefs  Order  of  God  :  (But  they  did  not  circumcife 
them  as  the  Spiritual  Seed  J  The  Method  now  under 
the  Gofpel,  by  no  lefs  Divine  Authority,  which  we  are 
clofely  to  follow,  is  to  baptize  Perfons  on  Profeflion  of 
their  Faith.  Here  lies  his  great  Miftake,  that  he  would 
bringdown  the  Order  about  Circumcifion  to  be  imitated 
in  the  Cafe  of  Baptifm.  But  who  told  him  fo  ?  God  hath 
never  revealed  this  to  be  his  Will,  that  Infants  muft  now 
be  baptized  under  the  Gofpel  Adminiftration,  as  they 
were  circumcifed  under  the  legal  Adminiftration.  And 
for  our  Opponents  to  run  on  to  do  any  Thing  as  Service 
to  God  which  he  has  ^not  ordained,  is  juft  to  lay  them- 
felves  under  a  Neceflity  of  preparing  an  Anfwer  to  that 
folemn  and  cutting  Qiiefiion,  fFho  hath  required  this  at 
your  Hands  ?  Let  them  (hew  that  God  requires  Infants 
to  be  baptized,  and  we'll  have  done. 

*  idly.  I  deny  the  AfTcrticn  (fays  he)  that  we  have  no 
'  other  Ground  of  judging  charitably  who  are  the  Spi- 
'  ritual  Seed,  but  only  a(5tual  Profeflion  ;  for  we  have 
«  the  Promife  of  God  to  Believers  and  their  Seed,  to 
'  judge  bv.'  Anf.  Mr,  F.  feems  very  unhappy,  that  he  is 
not  himfelf  fixed  in  his  own  Judgment  in  this  Cafe,  that 
he  fhould  be  obliged  to  put  on  different  Shapes  and  Forms. 
If  he  has  good  Ground  to  judge  charitably,  that  the  Infant 
Seed  of  Believers  are  the  Spiritual  Seed,  his  Diftin£lion  at 
the  Beginning  of  a  two-fold  beirg  in  the  Covenant  of 
Grace,  is  quire  ufelefs.  That  when  he  fpcaks  of  Church 
Members  and  their  Seed,  as  being  all  in  the  Covcnant-- 


i 


C    33    ) 

He  does  not  mean,  that  they  are  all  in  it  favingly,  but 
only  in  the  Sight  of  the  vifible  Church.  But  in  this 
Place  he  declares,  that  he  hath  Ground  of  charitable 
Judgment,  that  the  Infant  Seed  of  Believers  are  the  Spi- 
ritual Seed— -I  believe  none  will  deny  but  the  Spiritual 
Seed  are  favingly  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace.  And  fo  our 
Objedion  vi^ili  ftill  ftand  in  Force,    *  That  if  Believers 

*  and  their  Seed  are  all  in  Covenant  [thus]  they  will  all 

*  be  faved.'  'Tis  Pity  he  had  not  found  this  Ground  of 
charitable  Judgment  fooner,  and  fpared  himfelf  the 
Trouble  of  his  Diftindions,  and  us  the  Remarks  on  them. 
By  the  Way,  feeing  the  Scripture  does  not  declare  that 
the  Infants  of  Church  members,  as  fuch,  are  the  Spiritu- 
al Seed  of  Abraham t  Mr,  F.  is  defired  to  obferve,  that 
his  Judgment  in  the  Cafe,  is  not  a  fufficient  Proof  of  this 
Matter. 

*  Nor  can  their  Argument  (fays  he)  from  Gal.  iii.  i6. 

*  conclude  againft  us-— The  Words  are,    Now  to  Abra- 

*  ham  and  his  Seed  were  the  Promi/es  made.     He  faith  noty 

*  And  to  Seeds,  as  of  many  ;  but  as  of  one;  And  to  thy  Seed^ 

*  which  is  Chrifi.     If  this  Promife  is  made  to  Chrift  per- 

*  fonally,    then  it  will  prove  that  no  Believer  is  counted 

*  for  the  Seed,    but   Chrift  alone- --Therefore   it  muft 

*  have  been  made  to  Chrift  myftical,    or  as  Head  of  the 

*  vifible  Church  j    and  then  it  will  extend   to  all  Be- 

*  lievers  in  him,  and  alfo  to  their  Seed  j    for  they   were 

*  never  caft  out  of  the  Church,  for  ought  that  yet  ap- 
'  pears.*---  Anf.  One  might  think  that  the  very  menti- 
oning of  this  Argument,  would  be  a  fufficient  Refuta- 
tion of  it.  Does  not  the  Apoftle  very  particularly  guard 
agamft  fuch  a  Notion  ?  when  he  fays  the  Promifes  were 
not  made  unto  Seeds  ^  as  of  many  ;  but  as  of  one,  And  to  thy 
Seed,  which  is  Chriji.     'Tis   evident    the  Promifes  were 

.  made  primarily  to  Chrift  perfonal,  for  in  all  Things  ht 
mujl  have  the  Preeminence.  Col.  i.  i8.  and  fo  God  gives  him 
for  a  Covenant  of  the  People,  and  all  the  Promifes  in  him. 
Ifa.  xlii.  6.  2  Cor.  i.  20.  andfcra  Head  over  all  Things 
to  the  Church.  Eph.  i.  22.  Which  is  his  Body.  This  iS 
according  to  the  very  Tenor  of  the  A poftles  Argument, 
^<?/,  iii,  22.   But  tht  Scripturt  huth  (ondudtd  all  under 

C  Sin, 


(    54-    )         ' 

Sift,    thai  the  Prom'tfe  by  Faith  of  Jefus  Chriji,    might  W 
given  to  them  that  believe. 

2.     But  what  a  wild  Way  of  Arguing  does  Mr,  F.  ufe 
here!  *  Believers  Infants  are  Church-members— Therefore 

*  tlie  Promife  extends  to  them  alfo.'  Let  him  fpeak  out  j 
Will  Church- membcrfliip  entitle  any  to  the  Promife  of 
Juftification,  GaUVn.  8.  Of  the  Holy  Ghoft.  v.  14.  Of 
Adoption,  Chap.  iv.  5,  6.  And  of  the  eternal  Inheri- 
tance, Chap  iv.  7.  Do  the  Promifes  of  thefe  Spiritual 
Bltfliiigs  extend  to  Believers  and  their  Infant  Seed,  as 
ilich  ?  Or  are  any  of  the  Seed  of  Believers  entitled  to 
thefe  BleiTmgs  by  Birth-priviledge  ?  Let  Mr.  F.  (hew 
"where  God  hath  {jroraifed  thefe  Spiritual  Blefiings  fliould 
beentafl'd  upon  any  flefhly  Line,  John  i.  13.  'Tis  re- 
ally marvelous  that  our  Opponents  will  wreft  Texts  of 
Scripture  which  fpeak  particularly,  and  only  of  the 
Spiritual  Seed,  or  true  Relievers,  fo  countenance  their 
Fancies  about  the  Right  of  their  Infant  Seed  to  Church- 
jnemberftilp,  ^c.  If  they  do  thus  thro*  Ignorance,  and 
for  want  of  knowing  better,  they  are  much  to  be  pitied, 
and  ou^htto  be  timely  inftruded  ;  but  if  wilfully  againft 
Light  and  Knowledge  to  ferve  their  Turn,  they  muft 
be  very  unfit  Men  to  handle  the  Word  of  God.  2  Cor, 
H,  17.    Chap.  iv.  2.-     ~ 

*  The   Seed  of  Believers  (fays  he)  were  never  caft 

*  out  of  the  Church,  for  ought  th;^t  yet  appears.'  ^nf, 
I -don't  know  how  it  fhould  appear  that  Infants  were  caft 
©»it  of  the  Ncw-Teftament  Church,  when  it  does  not 
appear  thit  they  were  ever  in  it.  For  as  Mr.  Nrfs  wor- 
Ihil)'  obferves,    f   '  The   Perfons  who  were  Materials, 

*  and   the  confiicutirg   Members  of  this /?r/?  conftituted 

*  Gofpel  Church,  are  defcribed  by  their  Names,    Num- 

*  her  and  Holy  Exercifes,  in  Aiis  i.  12,  13,  14,  15, 
'  f^c'  And  who  were  they  ?  Why  a  Company  of 
profeffing  Believers,  and  noneelfe  :  Thefe  were  the  Ma- 
terials of  the  firft  confiituted  Gofpel  Church.  And  when 
we  trace  the  Account  of  its  Growth  and  Progrefs,  we 
ftill  find  that  none  but  profcfling  Believers  were  added 
onto  it,  J^s  W.  41,  47.  Chap.  iv.  4.  As  we  do  not 
read  of  any  Infants  in  this  Church  at  JerufaUm^   neither 

i  Hift.  tod  Myft.  of  th9  Bible,  Vol,  4,  P»s?  3 j6,  d# 


(    35    ) 

db  we  fead  df  any  Infants  that  were  Members  of  aHy  of 
the  primitive  Churches  planted  by  the  Apoftles,  thro* 
the  whole  Courfe  of  their  Miniftry— What  fignifies  it 
then  for  our  Opponents  to  harp  upon  this  String,  That 
Infants  were  never  caft  out  of  the  Church,  when  they 
have  never  {hewn,  that  thej^  were  ever  in  the  vifible 
Church,  under  the  New-Teftament  Difpenfation  ;  and 
it  hes  ftiil  at  their  Door  to  fhew  that  they  were,  if  they 
can— And  not  put  us  off  with  what  was  done  under  the 
legal  Adminiftration--Fbr  the  Jeivijh  OEconomy  is 
long  fince  at  an  End  ;  and  we  expea  New-Teftament 
Proof  for  what  pertains  to  a  New-Teftament  vifiblo 
Church. 

Again,  Where  in  Scripture  do  our  Opponents  read 
of  that  Notion  which  they  call  the  f  Pate  of  the  Church  t 
wherewith  they  colour  their  Fancy  for  half-way  Mem- 
bers, /.  e.  Members  (as  their  Infants  are)  not  fully  in 
their  Church,  nor  yet  in  the  wide  World,  but  within 
the  Pale  of  their  vifible  Church  ;  pmbablv  in  their 
Church- Yard— Somewhere  in  the  Middle  between  their 
Churchandthe  World— Did  Mr.  F,  ever  hear  of  any 
fuch  Members  in  Apoftolic  Times  ?  I  believe  not,  be- 
caufe  fuch  a  pretty  Fancy  has  been  hatch'd  long  fince 
that  Day  ;  and  what  is  it  good  for,  unlefs  it  be  to  pave 
tne  Way  to  fome  unknown  Middle  Region  for  them  irt 
the  other  World  too,  if  they  depart  in  luch  Circumftan- 
ces  ?  Did  Mr.  F.  ever  read  that  there  v-  t-c  fach  Mem-^' 
bers  as  their  Children  are,  either  under  the  Legal,  or 
Gofpel  Adminiftration  ?  Upon  the  Whole,  this  Text  is  f<J 
far  from  concluding  for  them,  that  it  is  a  Wonder  how  Mr* 
F.  could  have  the  Confidence  to  fay  it  does. 

'  Abrahams  Blefting  was  not  only   to  himfelf  perfon- 

*  ally,    but  alfo  to  his  Seed  .-    And  this  very  BleiTing  is 

*  come  on  the  Gentiles  through  Chrift  ;  therefore  it 
'  muft  come  on  their  Seed  too.  Gal.  iii.  14.*  Anfw.  Our 
Opponents  would  fain  find  fomething  from  the  Scripture 
to  favour  their  Argument,  when  norhii^g  can  be  more 
:ontrary  to  it.  For  the  Blefiing  of  Abraham,  which  the 
scripture  afTerts  to  have  come  on  the  Gentiles  through 
Chrift,  is  Juftification  by  Faith,  Rem,  iv.  11.   The  Gift 

t   P»g«  49'  C  a  ©f 


(    36    ) 

ef  the  Holy  Ghoft,  Gal.  iii.  14.  Adoption,  l^c.  Gal.  iir. 
26.  Spiritual  Blcffings,  pertaining  only  to  the  Spiiitual 
Seed,  even  true  Beiievc-rs,  Gal.  iii.  29.  as  I  have  already 
fhown.  Are  the  carnal  Seed  of  believing  G^m^;7w,  as  fuch, 
Partakers  of  thefe  Ipiritual  Benefits  ?  If  not,  how  can 
our  Opponents  fay  that  Abraham^  biefling  is  eome  on 
them,  when  the  AiVcrtion  is  entiieU'  falfe  ?  And  what 
does  it  avail  them  to  call  the  Jewijh  Church- Memberjhip 
in  the  flrjlAy  Line,  by  the  Name  of  Abrahams  Blefling, 
when  tne  Apoftle  does  not  call  it  fo,  neither  aflerts  any 
fuch  Thing  to  have  come  on  the  Gfntile  Infants  through 
Chrift  ?  Indeed  to  do  as  our  Opponents,  to  apply  what 
belongs  to  the  Spiritual  Seed  to  the  Fieftily,  »j  not  to  ex- 
plain, hut  to  confound  and  contradiH  Scripture  with  a  fVit- 
nef}. 

Again,  might  not  the  Promife  to   Abraham,    th  at  he 
fhould  be  the  Father  of  many  Nations,  and  that  Kings 
fliould  come  out  of  him,  Gen.  xvii.  5,  6.  be  called  Abra- 
ham'i  Bleffing,  or  a  great  Part  of  it  ?     And  is  there  any 
fuch  Blefling  come  upon  every  Gentile  Believer  ?  If  there 
js,  let  our  Opponents  fliew  it :    If  not,  does  not  the  Blef- 
fing  of  Abraham  come  curtail'd  ?    Was  it  not  a  Blefling 
to  Abraham  to  have,  the   Promife  of  the  Land  (from  the 
River    of   Egypt,    unto   the   great  River    Euphrates)    to 
liisSeed  ?  Gen.  xv.  18.  And  is  this  very  Blefling  come  on 
the  Gentiles  and   their  Seed  too,    in  the  Form  or  Fui^- 
NESS  of  it  ?     Will  our  Opponents  fay  it  is,   and  proceed 
to  fiiape  foaie  bloody  Engine  or  another  (like  the  folemn 
J,ea:^ut  ^.nd  Covenant^  with  Hands  lifted  up  to  Heaven, 
iVVEAR  to  vfe  their  Endeavours  to  extirpate  or  root  out 
aii  irom  fome  Part  of  the  Earth,  but  ^hemfelves?   Or  will 
they  fa V  it  is  not?    Does  not  Alraham's  Blefling  then 
(crm"    on   the  Gentiks    curtail'd  ?      Again,  was   it  not 
Ai'^i-'haTrC^  BklTing  to  have  the  Seal  of  the  Covenant  (fo 
sailed)  idminiftredtoall  the  Males  born  in  his  Houfe,  or 
boutht  with  Money  of  any  Stranger,  Gen.  xvii.  12.  And 
is  thts  come  on  the  Gentiles  ?    If  it  is.    Why  don't  our 
Op(M)n€nt3  baptize  thofe  who  are  born  in   their  Houfe  ; 
^nd  tiie  Servants  or   Slaves  they  buy  with  their  Money  ? 
Or  elfeihow  us  whcR  their  Right  was  repeai'd  >  or  whe- 
ther 


(  37  ) 
ther  Chrijl's  coming  has  dtminijhed  their  Privileges,  and 
narrow'^  the  Door  of  the  Church  ?  If  not  ;  does  not 
Ahrahani'^  Bleffing  come  on  the  Geniiles  curtail'd  ?  Once 
more  ;  Was  it  not  Jbraham's  Blefling,  to  be  fet  a- part,  as 
a  fpecial  Channel,  through  whole  Loins  God  wcuM  bring 
the  promifed  Seed  (Chrift)  into  the  World  j  and  his  Po- 
flerity  fepa rated  likewife,  to  be  a  peculiar  People,  froni 
among  whom  he  ^ould  be  fo  brought  forth  ?  And  is 
this  come  on  the  Gentiles  ?  If  not  ;  does  not  Ahraharr!^ 
Blefling  come  on  them  curtail'd  ? 

Ir  thefe  Things  were  only  Temporal,  and  peculiar  to 
Abraham  and  his  Seed,  fo  fay  we  of  Infants  Right  to  any 
Ordinance,  that  it  was  only  during  the  'Jewijh  CEconomy. 
\i  Ahraham\  Blefling  comes  full  and  uncurtailM  on  the 
Qentiles^  without  thefe  ;  fo  fay  we  without  the  Notion 
of  Intans  Churcli  Memberftiip  ;  and  let  our  Opponents 
prove  die  contrary  when  they  are  able. 

The  Sum  is  this.  That  the  Blelling  of  Abraham  which 
the  Scripture  afl'erts  to  have  come  on  the  Believing  G^«- 
//V^j  through  Chrifl,  is  Juftification  by  Faith,  with  all  the 
fpecial  and  faving  Benefits  of  the  New  Covenant  which 
Ao  accompany  it  :  For  they  which  be  of  Faith.,  are  blef- 
fed  with  faithful  Abraham.  Gal,  iii.  9.  i.  e,  Jultified  as 
he  was.  Upon  the  Whole,  I  can't  but  firmly  conclude 
that  the  aforefaid  Appointment  is.  at  an  End,  as  well 
as  many  other  Appointments  under  the  "Jeiuijh  or  legal 
Difpenfation^ 

There  is  no  Necefuty  I  fhould  dwell  long  upon  what 
Mr.  F.  calls  the  Devices  of  the Anabaptiji  to  prove  the  Re- 
peal of  the  aforefaid  Appointment  :  However,  Imayjufi: 
take  a  curfory  View  of  fome  Things  he  mentions.  '  They 
aHert,  ('fays  he)  that  Abraham'^  Covenant  was  mixt.' 
Po  they  fo  ?  then  'tis  inRefpe£tof  Temporal  and  Eternal 
Things.  But  who  amongil  them  ever  came  up  to  Mr. 
Fiulefs  Notion  of  Mixture  in  Abraham's  Covenant  ?  vi?;. 
That  Perfons  enjoy'd  the  fame  Privileges,  Liberties  and 
Immunities,  in  the  Church  as  Abraham  himfe)f  did,  until 
by  their  Degeneracy  they  were  broken  off. 

2.     '  They  join  vf^rc/'fljw's  Covenant  vvith    the  Law 

*  ^ivfn   Qn  Sinqii    a(>d    argua   ijiftt  15  w^s  a  rigoroqs 

Q  3  *  Covcii^fll 


r  38  ) 

*  Covenant  of  Works,  and  confequently  is  aboliftied,^ 
If  he  means  by  this  Charge,  the  Law  given  on  Sinai^  in 
a  ftrift  Senfe,  i,  e.  the  moral  Law  only,  'tis  very  unhke- 
ly  we  (hould  join  Abraham^s  Covenant  with  it,  in  order 
to  prove  it  to  be  abolifhed,  when  we  firmly  believe  the 
Moral  Law  itfelf  is  not.  But  if  we  join  Abraham's  Co- 
venant with  the  Sinai  Covenant,  confidercd  krgely  ; 
Mr.  F.  does  the  Bufinefs  for  us,  to  (hew  that  Abraham'^ 
Covenant  is  abolifhed,  when  he  calls  it  Abraham's  or 
i/r<7^/'s Covenant ;  for  all  mufl  grant,  that  ihe  Covenant 
made  with  the  Jy^^f///«  at  their  Return  ou:  of  ^f;-;*/,  is 
abolifhed  :  And  we  fhall  leave  him  to  debate  the  Matter 
with  the  infpired  Penman.    Heb.  8. 

Again,  *  Either  the  carnal  Jews  miflcok  the  Defign 
^  of  God  in  giving  the  Law,    or  they  did  not.     If  they 

♦  did  rniflake  it,  then  he  aid  not  give  it  to  be  a  Covenant 

•  of  Works  ;    for  this   they  thought  it  to  be  when  they 

*  fought  Juftification  by  it.'  Arifiv.  The  Argument 
feems  to  turn  out  thus  :  But  the  carnal  Jews  did  miftake 
it;  therefore  the  Law  was  given  to  be  a  Covt^nanc  of 
Grace.  7'ben  certainly  the  Jews  were  in  the  Ri^jh;:  to 
feek  Juflification  by  the  Law  ;  tho'  the  Ap-»ft!c  fays. 
That  as  many  as  are  of  the  IVorks  of  the  Law  areun- 
der  the  Cu^fe^  Gal.  iii.  11.  'Tis  llirprizing  ihar  our  Op- 
ponents can't  fee  that  the  Law  (as  a  rigorous  Covenant 
of  Works)  isfubfervient  to  the  Gofpel,  bv  convincing 
Men  of  Sin,  and  condemning  for  .-.m  ;  witiiout  aflcrt- 
ing  it  to  be  theXhing  itfelf,  to  which  it  is  fubfervient, 
Rom.  iii.  20.  Gal,  iii.  i  2.  23. 

And  as  impertinent  is  Mr.  Fs  Queftion  concerning 
PauVs  circumcifing  Timothy^  viz.  '  Did  he  bind  57;«<;//{)/ 
'  under  a  Covenant  of  Works  r  /.  e:  by  Circumcifing 
him.  Jnf.  When  P^a/ circumcifed  7/V/j^//>y,  Circum- 
cifionwas  then  abrogated,  and  was  nothing  at  all.  *  Paul 
■who  became  all  Things  to  all  Men,  adminiflred  this  anti- 
quated Ceremony  to  Timothy.,  that  he  might  not  offend 
thejewijh  Converts,  A^s  xvi.  3.  But  for  Mr. /^  then 
to  argue  from  this  Inffance,  when  Circumcifion  was  a 
mere  abrogated  Ceremony,  to  confirm  what  he  is  upon, 
is  intolerably  Abfurd  and  Ridiculous.  Mr. 

•    Vide  Pool  in  Lo?. 


(    39    ) 

Mr  F  at  the  Clofure  of  this  general  Head,  fwells  and 
vapours  exceedingly,  a.  if  he  had  come  ofF entirely  a  Con- 
queror forever.  *  I  CHALLENGE  (fays  he)  all  my  Op- 
'  ponents  in  this  Point,    to  prove   the  Repeal   of  God  s 

*  Gracious  Grant,  or  eife  let  them  forever  ceafe  to  cavil 

*  at  us.     T  demand  the  Text  of  Scripture  t^ar  lays,  God 
«  will  not  now  ffand  to  the  Charter  given  io  Abraham  and 

*  his  Poflerity,  ^c.    And  he  fuppofes  if  any  fhouidiinJer- 
take  this  Ta<k,    he  mult  be  One  endued  with  (ome  fuper 
Jngelic  Strength,    to  go  through  with  this  Bufiners.     But 
may  we  venture  to  enquire  what  is  this  weighty  Work, 
this  mighty  Tafk  ?    Is  it  to  fhew  that  thrift  the  prcmifed 
Seed  oiJbrahami  is  not  come  in  the  Flefh  ?    No  ;    this 
is  not  queitioned.     Is  it  to  (hew  that  God  will  not  be  the 
God  of  Abraham,  and  his  Spiritual  Seed  ?    No  ;   this  is 
owned  on  all  Sides  :    What  then  ?   Why  it  is  to  prove 
that  the  Carnal  Seed  of  Abraham  are  not  vilibly   in  the 
Covenant,  or  that  Infants  Ghurch-Memberflaip  i?  at  an 
End.     Is  this  the  great  Tafl^  ?    Is  this  all  ?    Why  it  caii 
be  done  without  either  going  tp  fleaven  for  the  Strengtl^ 
of  Cherubims,  or  gathering  ^H  the  Force  of  his  Opponents 
upon  Earth  to  difpatch  the  Bufinefs.     Even  any  Child  m 
Religion,  with  the  AfTiflance  of  God's  Word.,  is  an  equaj 
Match  to  this  fiippofed  impolTibleWorlf .     Firft  then,  ob- 
ferve  the  Charter  given  to  Abraham  and  hi§  Pofteri;y,   i.« 
broke.     Herp  ig  a  Text  of  Scripture  for  him.   Jer.  xxxi. 
32.   Which  my   Covenant   they  BRAKE,    altko'  I yjas  an 
Hujband  unto  them  faith  the  Lord.   Heb.  viii,  9.  They  con- 
tinued not  in  my  Covenant,    find  I  REGARDED    THEM 
NOT,  jfaith  the  Lord.     Whp* broke  this  Charter  ?     Why 
Jbraham's  Fofterity.  Who  were  rejeded  and  ditregarded  ? 
Not  the  Spiritual  S.ee4  but  the  Carnal ;    and  the  Chartej: 
is  thrown    by  as  old   Parchment  out  of  Date.   Heb.  vjii. 
13.     He  hath    made    the    Fjrst  OLp.      Ancl 
there  was  a  new  Charier  given,    every  Way  better  thaft 
the  Old,    and  not  according  to  it.     Behold  the  Days  comf 
(faith  the  Lord)  when  I  will  make  ii  new  Covenant  with  th^ 
Houfe  of  Ifrael,    and    the  Houfe  o/*Judah;    Not  accord- 
ing to  the  Covenant  that  I  made  with  their  Fathers  in  th$ 
'Day  when  /  tQok  them  h  ^ke  Lim4  to  lead  them  m  of  th 


C    40    ) 
Land  of  Egypt,    hecaufe  they  continued  not  in  my  Covenant, 
andl  regarded  them  not,  faith  the  Lord.  Heb.  viii.  8.  9. 

Let  Mr.  F.  (hew  if  he  can,  that  Believer's  Infantsare 
now  to  be  baptized  by  Vertue  of  this  new  Charter,  as  the 
Jewijh  Infants  were  to  be  circumcifed  by  the  Order  of 
God  of  old  :  But  as  this  is  impcmble  for  him  to  do,  K  t 
himl(accordmg  to  his  own  Direaion)  forever  ceafe  to  cavil 
at  us,  when  we  ftill  rejeft  his  Proof  iot  Infants  Baptifm. 
from  their  antiquated  Right  to  Circumcifion,  which  is 
zs  frivolous  as  it  is  ahfurd. 

If  it  be  objeaed,  that  the  above  cited  Text  means  only 
the  two  diflina  Adminiftrations,  I  would  enquire,  Was 
the  Lord  married  to  the  People  of  the  Jews,  or  called 
their  Hufband,  only  upon  the  Account  of  the  former 
Adminiflration  ?  If  fo,  then  it  follows  that  no  more  is 
to  be  underftood  by  the  whole  Nation  of  the  Jews  and 
their  Seed's  being  in  Covenant  (true  Believers  ex- 
cepted) than  that  they  were  only  the  Subjeds  of  Ordi- 
nances under  the  former  Admmiltration.  Now  that 
Adminiflration  being  aboiifhed,  fo  is  Infants  Church- 
Memberfhip  together  with  it  :  There  is  therefore  no 
Ground  to  fupport  the  Notion  of  our  Opponents,  feeing 
there  is  no  mention  made  of  it  in  the  New  Charter,  or 
Gofpel  Adminiftration^  ;  nor  any  Inltances  or  Examples 
of  It  in  the  Apoflolic  Churches. 

From  what  hath  been  obferved,  we  may  fee  where 
Infants  Church- mem berfhip  (fuch  as  it  was)  ^nded  in 
thQjewiJb  national  Church  ;  Now  the  great  Stone  which 
(houM  be  turn'd,  is  to  fhew  us  when  Infants  Church- 
inemberfhip  began  in  the  Chriftjan  Church,  under  the 
New  Tcflament  Difpenfation.  Let  Mr.  F.  read  the 
Hiftoryofthe  Churches  of  7«^^^,  Galilee,  Samaria,  (ffc. 
and  bring  us  fuch  unheard  of  Tidings— That  the  Infants 
of  ad.cvers  were  baptized,  and  admitted  Church- mem- 
b(;rs— Nay,  the  facred  Records  give  us  a  quite  differmt 
Relation  of  Things—Wz.  7hat  thofe  ivho  heard  the  Gof- 
fel,  and  received  the  Word  gladly,  were  baptized— And 
they  continued  fiedfajUy  in  the  Jpo(1le's  Doctrines  and  Fel'^ 
lotujlyib,and  in  breaking  of  Bread,  and  in  Prayers,  Ads  ii. 
Zli  4C>i  4i>  42.    Chap,  viii.  12.  with  fuch  like  3    which 

£>ive^ 


(    41     ) 

gives  us  to  underftand,  that  the  Members  of  the  New- 
Teftament  Churches  were  only  adult  Perfons,  who  were 
alfo  capable  to  be  found  adi^Ive  in  the  New-Teftament 
Worftip.  To  fay  there  were  Infants  admitted  into 
thofe  Churches,  the'  it  is  not  mentioned,  is  to  take  for 
granted,  what  fliould  be  proven  ;  and  fo  nothing  at  all 
to  the  Purpofe.  Sure  they  are  got  fomewhere  beyond 
the  Proteftant  Line,  who  would  impofe  on  the  World, 
the  Neceffity  of  believing  Things  unwritten  :  Nay  the 
Attempt  is  quite  weak  and  ridiculous  ;  and  yet  in  this 
Cafe,  it  mufl  be  our  Opponents  great  Refuge.  What 
ill-fhaped  Inflruments  mufl  thefe  Gentlemen  have  to 
work  with,  who  conclude  there  were  Infants  baptized, 
and  taken  into  the  Apoftolical  Cliurches,  when  the 
Scripture  fhews  no  fuch  Thing.  Now  unlefs  our  Oppo- 
nents could  roll  this  Stone  over,  and  give  us  a  Scriptural 
Account  of  Infants  Church>memberfhip,  under  the  New 
Teftament  Difpenfation,  they  do  juft  nothing  at  all  to 
the  Purpofe,  with  their  great  Noife  and  Buftle  about 
the  Covenant,  if c.-— They  may  ftill  expecSt  to  find  us 
rejefting  their  j^n^Ji  Gloffes,  and  flrongeft  Confequences, 
as  frivolous,  without  any  convincing  Force,  or  Weight 
at  all,  in  the  prefent  Cafe  ;  neither  can  they  thereby 
prove  Matters  of  Faa.  They  muft  know  alfo,  that  we 
are  beforehand  with  them  in  this  Point,  for  we  can  telj 
them  the  Rife,  Progrefs,  and  End  of  Infants  Church- 
memberfliip  in  the  Jezmjh  Church,  to  be  from  the  Re- 
turn of  Ifrael  out  of  Egypt  ;  or  at  the  furthefl,  from  the 
Days  of  Abraham^  to  Chrift's  putting  an  End  to  the 
Jew'ijh  CEconpmy.  And  to  ufe  Mr.  F%  vulgar  Phrafe, 
1  Challenge  him^  or  any  other,  to  fliew  that  Infants  were 
the  Subjeds  of  any  Ordinance,  or  Church  members,  by 
Divine  Authority^  ever  fmce.  Which  leads  me  rjiredly 
to  confider  his  Third  Aflertion,  wz.   '  That  God  has  ac- 

*  tually   renewed  and  confirmed   the  aforeLid   Appoint- 

*  ment,  under  the  New  Tefiament  Difpenfation.' 
Well,  if  this  is  made  good,  undoubtedly  the  Controver- 
cy  is  forever  at  an  End  :  But  how  Mr.  F.  has  difcharg'd 
himfelf  on  this  Head,  fhall  be  our  prefent  Searci)  and  £n. 
^uiry.     In  Jiis  Entrance  upon  this  Head,    he  prefents  us| 

with 


r  4«  ) 

wiih'a  fine  Flourifh— '  Here,  fays  he,  I  am  got  into  a  large 
'  Field,    where   I    have  a   Variety   of  Arguments  frori) 

*  Scripture'-— But  he  muft  know  we  are  not  concern'd 
with  the  Number  and  Viiriety  of  his  Arguments,  but  with 
their  Weight  and  Solidity  ;  for  he  has  only  order'd  us  to 
examine  them  by  JVei^ht,    and  not  Dy  Number. 

Here,  by  the  Way,  his  Repetition  of  the  lame  Things, 
obliges  me  again  to  obferve,  that  this  Grand  Miftake  runs 
all  alon^  thro*  this  Performance,  viz.  That  the  Cove- 
nant of  Grace  was  made  with  Man--  The  Abfurdities  of 
this  Notion  I  have  (hown  above-  — And  here  he  adds  a 
Text  of  Scripture  out  of  Gal.  iii.  8.  winch  is  as  remote  to 
his  Bufmefs,  as  any  he  had  cited  before"-This  fpeaks 
that  the  Gofpel  was  preached  to  Abraham— ^ hi^^  qwcrti- 
ons  that  ?  Don't  we  always  fay,  that  the  Covenant  of 
Grace  was  revealed  to  the  Fathers  long  before  Chrift 
came  in  the  Flefh,  and  that  true  Believers  were  intereft- 
cd  in  that  Covenant  ?  but  what  is  this  to  the  Point  in 
Hand  ?---Indeed  to  cite  Numbers  of  Scriptures,  whea 
they  don't  prove  what  they  are  brought  for,  ferves  for 
nothing  but  to  make  the  poor  unthinking  Populate  imagine 
that  his  Performance  is  well  proved,  when  'tis  no  fuel) 
Thing. 

'  And  fmce  the  Infants  of  Church- members  were  once 

*  in  it,  they  are  in  it  flili'---This  does  not  follow,  be- 
caufe  'tis  confefTed,  that  thofe  who  were  in  Covenant, 
may  be  broken  ofF---I  can't  .underftand  how  that  Cove-r 
nant  can  be  everlafting,  which  does  not  everlaftingly  fe- 
cure  al!  chofe  in  it  from  falling a//ay.  How  abfurd  foe- 
ver  i\^r.  F.  may  think  our  Expolitipn  of  Gal,  iii.  14.  to 
be--- We  muft  abide  by  it,  ?tili  we  find  a  better  .•  We 
fay  that  the  ijlefling  of  Abraham  which  the  Apoftle  has 
there  in  View,  comes  whully  on  the  believing  Gentiles 
thro'  Chrift-- And  at  the  farpe  Tipie  deny  that  the  Holy 
Apoflle  meant  any  thing  of  Infants  Right  t«  Church- 
inenjbei{hip---For  we  are  told  in  the  famp  Verfe,  what 
the  Apoftle  meant  by  Abraham^  Blefling,    viz.    *  The 

*  Pfomife  of  the  Spirit  j'  whofe  Work  and  Office  it  is 
to  take  the  Things  of  Chrift,  and  fhew  them  to  the 
jEleil  of  GocJ,     We  arp  *l^o  infofoied  in  thg  fame  Verfe, 


(    43    ) 

how  this  Bleffing  is  received,  not  by  Birth-right,  but 
thro'  Faifh.  Is  it  not  a  marvellous  Thing,  that  our  Oppo- 
nents will  labour  to  prove  their  Affertion  of  Infants  Right 
to  Church  Privileges,  from  fuch  Places  as  this,  which 
fpeak  particularly  and  delignedly  of  the  Spiritual  Seed—- 
'Tis  manifeft  that  the  Aportle's  Scope  in  the  Epiflle  to 
the  Gnlatians^  was  to  reclaim  thofe  People  from  Juda- 
i/m— 'There  is  not  a  Word  in  all  the  Apoftle's  ArgU'^ 
ments,  that  refers  to  the  Infant  Seed  of  Church-mem- 
bers, as  our  Opponents  urge--Nor  any  Thing  that  looks 
thac  Way,  throughout  the  whole  Epiftle.  Further,  this 
BleiTing  here  fpoken  of,  did  not  belong  to  the  Jews  them- 
felves,  as  the  natural  Offspring  of  Jbraham,  but  on  the 
Account  of  their  Regeneration,  or  New- Birth,  Rom.'w, 
12.  With  what  Face  then  can  Mr.  F,  conclude  that 
the  Gentiles  are  not  Heirs  of  the  Promife,  if  their  Infant 
Seed  are  rejected  ?  Juft  as  if  their  Infants  Church- mem- 
berfhip  (that  infipid  Thing)  wz?.  the  Chief,  the  All, 
intended  by  the  Bleffing,  which  the  Apoftle  mentions. 

The  firft  Text  of  Scripture  which  Mr.  F.  advances, 
as  tho'  it  proved  the  Right  of  Believers  Infants  to  Church- 
memberfhip  under  the  Gufpel  Difpenfation,  is  ylils  ii. 
39.  For  the  Promife  is  unto  ygu,  and  to  your  Children^  and 
to  all  that  are  afar  off,  even,  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God 
Jhallcall.  If  there  is  fuch  a  Thing  to  be  found,  asthepower- 
fulForceof  Education,  theflrong  Ryas  of  a  Mind  p're-pof- 
fefs'd  with  an  Opinion,  it  may  be  feen  in  the  Attempts  of 
our  Antagonifts  to  apply  this  Scripture  to  their  Purpofe  ;  as 
I  hope  to  make  evidently  appear.  Mr.  F.  Gloffeth  on  this 
Place,  as  ifhe  expeded  his  bare  Word  would  ftand  for 
undoubted  Proof--*  If  the  Parents  ffayshe)  repent,  they 
^  fhall  be  baptized  ;    and  fince  their  Chilcjren  are  in  the 

fame  Promife,  they  ftiall  be  baptized  too  ;  as  they  had 
*■-  the  former  initiating  Seal, of  the  Covenant,  vi%.  Cir- 
*  cumciiion,  fo  {hall  they  have  the  latter,  wz.  BaDtif.m.' 
I  deny  his  Affertion,  that  the  Baptijls  feek  to  confine  this 
Promife y  to  intend  only  miraculous  Gifts  :  And  1  believe 
this  Gentleman  is  much  unacquainted  with  our  main 
Strength,  when  he  fays,  it  is  this,  viz.  that  we  affirm  the 
iaji  Words  of  the  Text  to  be  a  Limitation  of  the  for  JTier. 


(  44  ) 
But  to  proceed  ;  The  Words,  according  to  Mr.  F.  muft 
be  thus  paraphras'd,  The  Promife  of  RemiJJlon  of  Sim,  of 
the  Gift  of  the  Holy  Ghqfi,  and  Salvation  is  to  you  Parents, 
en  your  Repentance,  and  complyitig  with  the  prefent  Call, 
and  in  Jo  doing,  your  Children  are  entitled  alfo  to  Baptijm, 
i^c.      But, 

I.  The  Promife  here  is  the  fame  both  to  the  Parents 
and  Children  ;  if  it  is  of  the  Pardon  of  Sin,  and  Gift  of 
the  Holy  Ghoft  to  the  Parents,  'tis  fo  to  the  Children. 
'Tis  ftrange  that  Mr.  F.  who  charges  us  with  Cw- 
tailing  Abraham's  Blejfing,  Ihould  himfelf  Curtail  this 
Promife — That  the  Parents  were  to  have  Remiflion  of 
Sins,  ^r.---But  all  that  is  pleaded  for  the'r  poor  Infants, 
is  that  they  were  to  enjoy  outward  Privileges,  to  be 
baptized— Is  there  any  Room  for  this  D'i^in£tion  in  the 
Text  ?  Does  the  Aportlc  make  any  fuch  Difference  ? 
Not  at  all.  For  whatever  the  Promife  contains,  and  is 
to  the  Parents,  fuch  it  is,  no  more  nor  no  Jefs,  to  the 
Children  :  'Tis  evident  that  the  Expofition  of  our  Oppo- 
nents, tends  to  faften  a  Glofs  upon  the  Apoftle's  Words, 
which  Isfalfe  ;  for  if  Children  are  interelted  in  this  Pro- 
mife, by  Virtue  of  their  Parents  Interefl  in  it,  then  it 
follows  they  have  Remiflion  of  Sins,  the  Gift  of  the  Ho- 
ly Ghoft,  and  Salvation,  upon  the  Account  of  their  Pa- 
rentsRepentance  and  Faith--Which  is  not  true  :  Becaufe 
thefe  are  the  Things  contain'd  in  the  Promife,  and  the 
Promife  is  the  fame  to  the  Children  as  it  is  to  the  Parents. 
Or  to  fvippofe  that  by  Children  here,  we  mult  underftand 
Infants,  and  that  Church -memberfliip  belongs  to  them  at 
Prefent,  but  thefe  Spiritual  Bieflings  were  not  to  be  con- 
ferred upon  them  'till  afterward,  would  be  contrary  to 
Mr.  i^sown  VVay  of  arguing— That  the  Promife  is  expref- 
fed  in  the  prefent  Tenfe. 

In  the  Way  he  goes  on,  he  muft  neceffarily  fall  on  one 
of  thcT::;  Abfurdities,  either,  i.  That  the  fame  Promife  is 
not  the  fame,  or  of  the  faqie  Fulnefs  to  Children,  as  it 
is  to  the  Parents  ;  or,  %.  That  Children  are  entitled  to 
PardonofSin,  the  Gift  of  the  Holy  Qhoft,  ^ndSalvation, 
upon  their  Parents  Faith  ?  Or  elfe,  3.  Be  obliged  to  own 
that  which  |i?  h^  fondeiunsd  in  R§fpe^  pf  the  T^nfc 
ufed  iitre,  a.  Seeing 


(    45     ) 

2.  Seeing  the  Gofpcl  is  not  preach'd  to  Infants,  nei- 
ther do  the  Precepts  of  it  enjoin  Repentance  upon  Infants 
as  a  Duty,  in  that  Capacity  :  Let  Mr.  F.  (hew  the  Scrip- 
tural Grounds  of  his  Practice,  or  even  the  Reafonablenefs 
of  his  Opinion,  that  Infants  are  capable  of  giving  Obedi- 
ence to  God  in  Baptifra,  the  fecond  Step  here  exprefs'd  in 
the  Context  as  a  Duty,  when  they  are  not  capable  of  the 
firft,  viz.  Repentance  j  or  (hew  his  Authority  for  his 
perverting  the  Apoftle's  Words,  to  countenance  Infant 
Baptifm  :  For  inftead  of  reading  Repent  an^be  baptised, 
he  muft  always  read  the  Scripture  backward,    '  Be  bap' 

*  tized  and  repent y  whenever  he  has  to  do  with  baptizing 
of  Infants,  contrary  to  the  Apoftle's  Words,  and  the 
whole  Tenor  of  the  Word  of  God.  Methinks  our  Op- 
ponents don't  diftinguifh  between  Promifes  and  Com- 
mands, in  the  Way  they  argue  ;  'tis  certain,  a  Promife 
can  never  make  that  to  be  a  Duty,  which  is  not  com- 
manded ;  and  therefore,  to  urge  the  baptizing  of  Infanta 
from  this  Place,  to  be  a  Duty  (which  God  has  no  where 
ordered  or  commanded)  muft  needs  be  a  fad  abufe  of  this 
Promife. 

3.  There  is  not  any  Thing  in  the  Text  or  Context 
which  leads  us  to  conclude,  that  by  (Children)  here  we 
muft  underftand  Infants,  but  altogether  to  the  Contrary  : 
Tho*  Mr.  F.  fays,    *  The   Word  Teknois^    fignifies  an 

*  Offspring,  tho'  it  were  a  Minute  old.'  But  will  he 
prefume  to  fay,  this  Word  fignifies  an  Offspring  of  fuch 
an  Age  only  ?  -f^  *  It  is  a  general  Word,  which  in  Scrip- 

*  ture,  and  other  Writers,  is  ufcd  to  fet  forth  all  Sort  of 
'  Children,  of  what  Sex,  of  what  Age,  of  what  Degree 

*  foever  they  be.'  And  fo  we  find  it  here  abundantly  in 
our  Favour,  comparing  this  39th  Verfe  of  the  2d  Chapter 
of  the  yiSfs,  with  the  17th  Verfe  of  the  fame  Chapter, 
where  thefe,  who  are  here  called  Children,  are  there 
called  Sons  and  Daughters,  grown  to  fuch  Years  of  Ma- 
turity, as  to  receive  the  Holy  Ghoft  by  the  hearing  of 
Faith,  and  to  Prophefy  ;  which  does  not  very  well  fuit 
With  Mr.  F%  Defign  of  Reftriding  the  IVerd  in  this  Place, 

a& 


(  46  ) 
as  fho'  it  intended  only  an  Infant  of  a  Minute  old,  of  at 
moft  one  very  young.  The  ftated  Order  of  God,  whereby 
People  receive  the  Holy  Ghoft,  is  by  hearing  the  Word. 
Gal.  iii.  2.  Msx.  44.  Rom.  x.  17.  iCar.  iii.  8.  And 
in  the  Ufe  of  appointed  Means  and  Ordinances  to  receive 
further  Meafures  of  the  Spirit.  Now  feeing  this  is  a  Pro- 
mife  of  the  Holy  Ghofl  to  Children,  as  well  as  to  the 
Parents,  there  is  no  Room  to  conclude  that  the  Apoftle 
meant  Infants  who  are  incapable  to  receive  the  Holy 
Ghofl  bv  hearing  the  Word  ;  but  Children  of  riper 
Years  :  For  what  is  here  fpokenj  is  according  to  the  flated 
Order  of  God  in  the  A^Iiniftry  of  the  Word,  wherein 
Peter  and  the  Apoftles  were  then  Exerciftng.  Nor  will 
our  Arguings  on  this  Head,  afford  our  Opponents  Room 
to  cavil,  that  we  caft  away  Infants  utterly  ;—becaufcJ 
we  are  not  fpeaking  of  what  God  does  with  Infants,  but 
of  his  Order  in  the  Gofpel  Miniftry,  with  thofe  come  to 
Years  of  Underftanding.  Neither  can  I  find  what  thofe 
Notes  are,  whereby  Mr.  F.  can  (b  plainly  diftinguifh 
thefe  Children  ffum  fach  as  were  come  to  Years.— -By 
what  is  found  in  Scripture  concerning  them,  (or  the 
Meaning  of  the  Apoftle  in  thefe  Words^  they  arc  plainly 
diftinguifh'd  to  be  fuch  who  were  ad  vane' J  to  Years  of 
Maturity,  that  they  were  capab'c  to  hear  the  Word,  and 
to  receive  the  Spirit  by  heaiing  of  it  >  which  is  an  Evi- 
dence of  the  Truth  which  we  alledge,-— and  ferves  to 
Ihew  the  Invalidity  of  what  Mr.  F.  utges,— that  thefe 
Children  were  join'd  with  their  Parents,  therefare  they 
muft  be  Infants. 

4.  If  thofe  Children  here  mentioned,  were  in  Cove- 
nant, in  the  Manner  our  Opponents  plead  for  by  Vertue 
of  thisPromife,  fo  alfo  were  the  unconverted  Gentiles ; 
for  the  Promife  runs  exadly  the  fame  to  them  in  the  pre- 
fent  Tenfe,  as  it  dues  to  the  Children,  viz.  i.  The  Pro- 
mife is  to  you.  2.  The  Promife  is  to  your  Children. 
3.  The  Promife  is  to  them  afar  off :  But  if  the  uncon- 
•verted  Gentiles  v/ere  not,  neither  were  Infants  ;  for  the 
fame  Reafon  holds,  take  it  which  Way  you  will.  'Tis 
a  little  odd,  that  this  Gentleman  who  pre'ends  to  under- 
ilaiid  Grammar,  fhould  be  guilty  of  fuch  a  Grammatical 

Blui>^ 


(    47    ) 

blunder  fiiihfelf,    in  fo  plain   a  Cafe,  as  to  affert,  fhat 
'  when  the  Apoflle  fpeaks  to  the  Jewi^    he  fpealcs  in  the 

•  prefent  Tenfe  j  but,  mentioning  the  Gentiles,  he  fpeaks 

•  in  tht  future  Tenfe.'  As  the  Apoftle  does  not  fay  the 
the  Promife  is  to  you,  znA  Jhall  be  to  your  Children,  fo 
neither  does  he  fay  it  Jhall  be  to  the  Gentiles  ;  hut  the 
Promife  is  to  them  afar  ofF.  If  Mr.  F.  has  Liberty 
to  alter  the  Verb  (underftood)  in  the  laft  Claufe  from  the 
prefent  Tenfe  to  the  future,  we  defire  to  know  why  we 
may  not  have  the  like  Liberty  to  change  the  fame  Verb 
(underftood)  from  the  prefent  Tenfe  to  the  future  too  ;—• - 
and  fo  make  the  W^oids  run  thus  :— The  Promife  is  to 
you,  and  fliall  be  tc/yotrr  Children,  l^c.  How  could  Mr. 
F.  help  himfelf,  but  only  fay,  that  we  were  like  him, 
guilty  o/falfe  Con{lru<aion.— But  to  fet  Mr.  F.  in  the 
Right  J  'tis  not  the  Promife  that  is  exprefled  in  the  future 
Tenfe,  but  the  Work  of  God  in  calling  the  Gentiles  ; 
and  the  Apoftle  fhews  who  among  the  Gentiles  the  Pro- 
mife refpeded  :  Even  as  many  as  the  Lord  our  God  fhall 
tail.  And  confidering  what  the  Promife  was,  viz.  Re« 
milfion  of  Sins,  the  Gift  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,  and  Salva* 
tion,  neither  of  three  Parties  (Parents,  Children,  or 
Gentiles)  were  Partakers  of  it.,  or  interefted  in  it,  but 
according  to  the  Order  of  the  Gofpel,  A^s -Xx.  21. 
Hence  Mr.  Fs  Queftion  '  If  nofpeeial  Privileges  be  de- 
iijgn'd  for  the  Children  of  Believers  in  this  Text,  for  what 
End  are  they  join'd  with  their  Parents  in  the  Promife  ?* 
is  eafily  anfwered,  viz.  for  the  fame  End  that  the  Gen- 
tiles were  join'd  with  both  in  this  Promife,  i.  e.  to  be  fa- 
red through  Faith  in  Chrift  Jefus. 

We  have  compared  this  Place  with  Gen.  xvii.  7.  (ac- 
cording to  Mr.  Fs  Defire)  and  can  do  no  lefs  than  declare 
to  the  World,  that  we  can't  behold  the  Agreement  at  all 
in  the  Light  our  Opponents  reprefent  it;  unlefs  i.  all 
jfbraham's  flefhly  Seed  were  Partakers  of  Remiffion  of 
Sins,  and  of  the  Gift  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  ;  or  2.  Un- 
lefs the  Promife  here  is  not  the  fame  to  the  Children 
as  it  is  to  the  Parents.  'Till  either  of  thefe  Things  are 
ftade  appear,  we  can't  fee  any  Refemblance  thcfe  Places 

have 


,       (    48    ) 

have  to  each  other,  that  wiJl  fuit  the  prefent  Purpofe  ot 
our  Adverlaries  at  alJ. 

5.  And  laflly  :  That  which  fully  overthrows  all  that 
our  Opponents  have  raifed  from  this  Scripture  in  Favour 
of  their  Pradlice,  and  which  will  forever  render  all  their 
future  Endeavours  ufelefs  and  invalid  on  this  Head,  is  the 
Account  which  the  Scripture  gives  us  of  this  Affair,  yf^s 
ii.  41,  42.  Then  tliey  tkat  gh6\y  received  his  fford  were 
baptized  :  and  the  jame  Day  there  were  added  unto  them 
about  Three  Thoufand  Souls.  And  they  continued Jledfajily 
in  the  A'-.oJlUs  DoSirine  and  Fellowjhip^  and  in  breaking  of 
Breads  and  in  Prayers.  Here  is  no  mention  of  any  bap- 
tized, but  thofe  who  received  the  Gofpel  gladly  :  Not  a 
Wordofjtiy  Infants  baptized.  I  feel  in  my  Soul  a  Pity 
for  my  Opponents,  that  they  will  fo  ftrenuoufly  main- 
tain a  Practice  for  which  there  is  no  Command  j  nor  any 
Hint,  Inftance,  or  Exan)ple  of  it  in  the  Word  of  God. 

Heie  I  would  juft  afk  them,  what  fignifies  it  for  them 
to  urge  this  Place  of  Scripture  to  ftrve  a  Purpofe  it  was 
not  originiilly  defign'd  for,  as  is  abundantly  manifeft  from 
the  Verfes  before  and  after  ?  When  there  is  no  Record 
of  Infant  Baptifm  in  Scripture,  what  can  any  One 
conclude  but  this,  that  the  Apoftlcs  were  unacquainted 
■with  it  ?  ^ 

What  Ground  is  left  our  Opponents,  but  only  to  fay, 
that  Infa/its  might  be  baptized,  tho'  the  Scripture  does 
not  mention  it.  A  forry  Shift  /  They  may  as  well  fay, 
that  Infants  alfo  received  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  becaufe 
the  Words  are  exprefs,  that  thofe  uho  were  baptized,  con- 
tinued  fiedfafily  in  the  Apofiles  Do£lrine^  and  in  breaking 
of  Bie.d/Vc-. 

So  that  upon  an  Examination  of  this  Place,  our  Afler- 
tion.  That  profefling  Believers  are  the  only  proper  Sub- 
je<3:s  of  Baptifm,  ftill  abides  impregnable  ;  and  the  Ahfur-^ 
dity,  and  Nonfenfe^  which  Mr.  F.  would  fling  fo  plen- 
tifully on  our  Asguments,  rebound  on  his  own  :  When 
he  does  not  reprefent  the  fame  Promifs,  to  be  as  full 
to  the  Children,  as  it  is  to  the  Parents  :  When  he  would 
disjoin  that  which  the  Aportle  puts  together,  and  indeed 
invert  the  Order  of  his  Words,  by  placing  Baptifm  be- 
fore 


C  49  ) 
fore  Repentance,  contrary  to  the  whole  Tenor  of  th« 
Word  of  God  :  When  he  would  urge  that  by  Children, 
we  muft  underftand  Jittle  Infants,,  who  are  incapable 
to  receive  the  Holy  Ghoft  by  hearing,  according  to  the 
ftated  Order  of  God  :  When  he  afferts  that  the  Apoftlo 
mentioning  the  Gentiles,  fpeaks  in  the  future  Tenfe, 
contrary  ro  the  very  Conftrudlion  of  the  Words :  And, 
when  he  infinuates  that  Believers  Infants  are  to  be  bapti~ 
zed,  tho'  the  whole  Context  makes  utterly  againft  him. 
Hence  it  plainly  appears,  that  this  Place  of  Scripture  hat 
another  Meaning  than  what  Mr.  F.  hath  aflign'd  to  it. 

*  Tho'  he  profefles   he  can  as  foon  turn  Sceptick,  and 

*  conclude  that  the  Scripture  has  no  certain  Meaning  at 

*  all,  as  conclude  that  the  Scripture  now  under  Debate, 
'  can  have  a  contrary  Meaning  to  what  he  has  aflign'd' 
Whether  he'll  turn  Sceptick,  I  can't  tell-But  this  I  am 
fure  of,  that  a  Mifinterpretation  of  Scripture,  is  attend- 
ed with  very  dangerous  Confequences,  as  well  as  Scepti- 
cifm.  And  his  Certainty  and  Refolution  in  this  Cafe, 
Ihews  his  firm  Attachment  to  his  own  Opinion,  and 
Glofs  upon  the  Text,  more  than  it  proves  the  Meaning; 
he  has  aflign'd,  to  be  the  real  Intent  of  the  Words.  Up- 
on the  whole.  Infants  Right  to  Church- memberfhip, 
under  the  New  Teftament  Difpenfation,  is  fo  far  from 
being  proved  or  confirmed,  by  this  Scripture  (of  which 
Mr.  F.  fays  it  is  enough  to  their  Purpofe,  if  there  wera 
no  other)  that  it  can't  be  done  without  manifeft  Violence 
offered  to  thefe  facred  Words. 

At  theClofehe  entertains  his  Readers  with  an  Apology 
for  his  dwelling  fo  long  on  thefe  Words— And  for  A- 
mends,  tells  them  he  purpofes  greater  Brevity  hereafter  i 
but  withal,  gives  them  to  underftand,  if  they  don't  find 
his  Performance  according  to  his  Purpofe,  they  muff: 
know  the  Caufe  of  it  to  be  the  great  Heaps  oi  Rubbijk 
caft  on  every  controverted  Text,  which  requires  Time 
and  Pains  to  Jhove  them  away.  'Tis  reafonable  to  fup- 
pofe,  that  every  thinking  Man,  will  confider  One 
whofe  Work  is  fo  great,  and  make  Allowance  of  Time 
in  Proportion  to  do  it.  But  Mr.  F.  muft  have  very  ex- 
alted Thoughts  of  himfelf  and  his  Brethren,  if  he  fuppofes 

D  that 


(    5d    ) 

that  they  have  not  brought  at  Icaft  their  equal  Share  o' 
Rubbifli,  to  make  thefc  numerous  Heaps  to  become  (o 
great.  However  this  Gentleman  is  pleas'd  to  call  our 
Arguments  by  the  odious  Name  of  Rubbijh,  yet  I  am  rea- 
dy to  think,  there  are  fuch  great  Heaps  of  Scriptural 
Evidences,  which  f^and  in  his  Way  of  proving  Infants 
to  be  the  Subjects  of  Baptifm,  that  were  he  to  take  much 
more  Time  and  Pains,  he  would  not  be  able  with  his 
Shovel  of  human  Confequenccs,  ever  to  Jhove  them  out 
Qf  his  Way. 

*  I  next  advance  (fays  he)  that  very  clear  and  unan- 
fwerable  Place,  in  Rom.  xi.  1 6,  17.  For  if  the  Firji 
Fruit  be  holy,  the  Lwnp  is  alfo  holy  :  And  if  the  Root 
be  holj^  Jo  are  the  Branches  :  And  if  forrie  of  the  Bran- 
ches be  broken  offy  and  thou  being  a  wild  Olive -Tree^ 
wert  graffed  in  amongji  them,  and  with  them  partake/i  of 
the  Root,  and  Fatnefsofthe  Olive-Tree?  The  Expreffionc 
(we  find)  are  metaphorical  :  Now  'tis  certain,  no  Me- 
taphor is  to  h?:  jirain'd  to  prove  any  Thing  which  is  not 
reveard  elfewhere  in  Scripture  :  That  the  Infants  of  be- 
lieving Gentiles  are  fcefderally  holy,  and  the  Subjefts  of 
BaptiAn,  is  no  where  revealed  in  Scripture  :  Then  to 
improve  the  Apoftle's  metaphorical  Expreflions^  oi  an 
Olive  Tree  cutting  of--Graffing  in,  &c.  to  prove  Infanta 
Right  to  Baptifm,  appears  at  firft  Sight  very  weak  and 
JnfufRcient. 

2,  The  Gentiles  who  were  graffed  in,  were  not  graf- 
fed  into  the  Jewijh'  Church,  as  it  ftood  under  the  Law  ; 
but  into  the  New  Teftament  Church,  under  the  Gofpe! 
Difpenfatron  ;  which,  as  I  have  ftiown,  was  conftituted 
and  made  up  of  profefTing  Believers.  And  I  may  add, 
1  Cor,  xii.  13.  For  by  one  Spirit  are  we  all  baptized  int$ 
tine  Body,  whether  we  be  Jews  or  Gentiles,  whether  we 
h  Bond  or  Free  :  And  have  been  all  made  to  drink  into  one 
Spirit.  Did  the  Sacrament  of  Baptifm  initiate  Perfons 
into  the  Jewijh,  or  into  the  Gofpel  Church  ?  Into  the 
Gofpel  Church  no  Doubt  :  For  if  otherwife,  the  Jews 
-would  have  no  Need  to  be  baptized,  to  initiate  them  m- 
to  the  vifible  Church,  under  the  New  Teftament,  it 
they  were  in  it  already.  Mr.  F.  himfelf,  I  think,  fully 
•wns  what  I  atri  now  upon,  when  he  laysj   *  There  is  a 

Wide 


(    51    ) 

wide  Difference  between  Gathering  and  Ptrmtng  a 
Church  from  among  thofe  who  are  ignorant  of  Chrif- 
tianity  ;  and  a  Church  already  gathered,  and  form'd^ 
and  inftrudted— For  in  profeliting  Jews  or  Pagans  to 
Chriftianity,  they  muft  of  Neceflity  be  taught,  befor© 
they  can  either  profefs  their  Faith  in  the  Doftrinesof  it, 
or  be  admitted  to  Baptifm.' 
Pray  what  can  Mr.  F.  call  this  Church  thus  gathered, 
by  teaching,  from  amongft  yews  and  Pagans  ?  but  the 
New  Teftament  vifible  Church.  And  what  are  the  Ma- 
terials whereof  this  Ghriftian  Church  is  form'd  and  con- 
ftituted  ?  Why  thofe  that  are  taught  ^whether  Jews  or 
Pagans)  and  who  do  profefs  their  Faitn  in  the  Doftrinei 
of  Chriftianity,  and  are  thereupon  admitted  to  Baptifm. 
One  fhould  think  by  all  this,  that  we  are  perfeftly 
agreed  as  to  the  firft  Gonftitution  of  the  New  Teftament 
Church.  Now  I  fay,  the  Believing  Gentiles  were  graff^ed 
into  this  NewTeftamentChurch,thus  gathered,  form'd, 
and  inftruded,  and  fo  had  the  Gofpel  preach'd  unto 
them,  and  partook  of  all  its  Benefits  together  with  thofe 
jews^  which  through  Grace  believed  j  and  thus  both 
Jews  and  Gentiles  in  fweet  Gofpel  Unity,  enjoyed  th* 
Fatnefs  of  the  Olive  Tree,  and  no  otherwife  :  But  that 
the  Infants  of  thofe  Believing  Jews  or  Gentiles  were  ad- 
mitted to  Baptifm  upon  the  Account  of  Covenant  Holi- 
nefs,  is  a  Notion  never  as  yet  confirmed  by  Scripture^ 
nor  ever  like  to  be. 

Having  prepared  the  "Way  fo  far,  we  need  not  be  much 
concern'd  about  all  the  Force  Mr.  F.  raifes  here  againft 
the  Truth   we  profefs.      He  argues  from  this  Text  i 

•  However  (fays  he)  here  is  aflerted,  i.  thefcederal  Holi-» 
'  nefs  of  Believers  Children.      If  the  Root  be  holy,    fo  are 

•  the  Branches  :    God  has  faid  it,  and  who  dare  to  unfay 

•  it  ?     The  Anabaptifts  are  ftill  puzzled  about  this  foede-, 

•  ral  Holinefs,  and  fortie  cannot,  others  perhaps  will  not 

•  underftand  it.*  Anf.  Whatever  Ignorance  and  Ohjiinacf 
\Ax.F.  imagines  the  Anabaptifts  to  bepoflefs'd  with,  I  can 
saffure  him  they  are  not  fo  much  puzzled  to  underftand 
tvhat  Foederal  Holinefs  is,  as  they  arc  to  find  Scriptural 
Grounds  for  it  under  the  Gofpel  Difpenfation.     The 

D  2  Heafoilk 


(    52    ) 

Reafon  of  their  Ignorance,  is  for  want  of  knowing  that 
which  no  Body  can  (hew  them.  And  the  Caufe  ot  their 
Obftinacy,  is  for  not  taking  the  Aflertions  of  their  Oppo- 
nents for  fufficient  Proof,  without  Scriptural  Teftimony. 
But  how  is  the  F"oederal  Holinefs  of  HeHevers  Children 
aflerted  in  this  Text  ?  '  Why  if  the  Root  be  holy,  fo  are 
*  the  Branches.'-  -If  according  to  Mr.  F.  we  underftand 
the  Apoftle  to  mean  Abraham  by  this  Metaphor  ?  How 
can  the  Fa-ieral  Holinels  of  Believers  Children  be  aflerted 
here  ?  Mr.  F.  won't  aflert  fure,  that  every  Believing  Pa- 
rent is  a  Root  to  his  Family  or  Poiterity,  'dsAhraham  was 
to  his  ?  or  that  9\)'  fuch  Thing  is  here  intended  by  the 
Apoftle;  forihey^w^,  the  Pofterity  of  y/^;Y7/(?^w,  were 
called  but  the  Branches,  much  lefs  then  can  any  Gentiles 
be  called  the  Root ;  of  whom  the  Apoftle  faith  they  were 
grafFed  in  among  the  tiranches  :  But  that  the  natural 
Offoprmg  of  thofe  Branches  (the  Gentiles)  who  were 
grafted  in  contrary  to  Nature,  are  upon  that  Account 
fcederally  Holy,  is  what  the  Apoftle  does  not  afllert,  nor 
any  Thmg  in  his  Scope  which  tends  that  Way.  For 
the  yews^  the  Natural  Branches  flood,  not  by  Foederal 
Holinefs,  as  under  the  Law,  but  by  Faith  in  Chrifl  ; 
and  fo  in  the  NewTeftament  Church,  which  as  I  have 
proven,  was  made  up  of  profefiing  Believers  :---But  their 
Infant  Seed  were  not  baptized  as  we  have  an  Account  of. 
Now  amongft  thefe,  the  Believing  Gentiles  were  grafted 
in,  and  partook  alfo  of  the  Benefits  of  the  Gofpel,  Rom. 
XT.  12.  And  this  is  indeed  agreeable  with  the  Apoftle's 
Words,  of  the  Gentiles  partaking  of  the  Fatnefs  of  the 
Olive  Tree.  The  Sum  is  juft  this  ;  That  Believing 
*fezvs  and  Gentiles  were  united  together  in  one  Body  in 
the  New  Teftament  Church,  and  fo  were  Partakers  to- 
gether of  the  precious  and  nourifhing  Benefits  of  the  Gof- 
pel of  Chrifl.  But  what  Fatnefs  is  there  in  External  Pri- 
vileges fimply  confidered  ?  Nay  what  Fatnefs  is  there  in 
Baptifm  to  Infants  ?  feeing  our  Opponents  are  not  able 
to  mention  any  Nourifljment  this  Ordinance  of  God's 
Houfe  afi^urds  them,  wliilft  Infants.  To  Baptize  Infants 
cait't  be  doing  Obedience  and  Service  to  God,  becaufe  he 
bas  ngt  commanded  it.    To  Baptize  Infants,  feals  no 

Proraif* 


(    53    ) 

Promlfe  to  them,  becaufe  there  Is  no  Promife  annex'd  to 
Infant  Biiptifm.  And  yet  this  is  the  Mighty  Nothing  that 
muft  be  fo  ftrenuoufly  fupported  to  divide  the  Chn'ftian 
World  with,  as  Mr.  F.  further  urges  :  '  If  the  Children 
'  of  Believing  Gentiles  are  excluded,  we  muft  read  the 
'  Scripture  backwards,  and  fay,  the  Believiv.^  G^«///i>j  did 

*  not  partake  of  the  Root  and  Fatnefs  of  the  fame  Ohve 

*  Tree  with  the  Believing  Jews'— -^ut  why  this  harte  ? 
This  Gentleman  fadly  forgets  himfelf,  for  he  has  not  yet 
fhewn  that  the  Children  of  the  Believing  Jews  were  ad- 
mitted into  the  New  Teftament  Church;  vihat  runs  in 
his  Mind,  is  the  JciviJJi  National  Churjh  under  the  Law  : 
But  the  Gentiles  were  not  grafFed  into  that,  but  into  the 
new  gather'd  and  form'd  Church,  made  up  of  Jewi 
profelyted  to  Chriflianity,  i.  e.  the  Chriftian  vifible 
Church  under  the  New  Teftament  Difpenfation.  And 
before  Mr.  F.  can  have  any  Room  to  fay  that  we  muPc 
read  the  Scripture  backwards,  he  muft  firft  prove  that 
any  Jewijh  Infants  were  admitted  into  the  New  Tefta- 
ment  Church  ;  and  till  he  does  that,  we  will  read  this 
Scripture  forwards,  without  any  Oppofition  ;  yea,  and 
People  after  us  to  Thoufand  Generations. 

idly.     He  fays,     *  The  Text  aflerts  that  the  Believing 
'  Gentiles  were  made  Partakers   of  the    fame  Privileges 

*  that  Abraham  and  his  Seed  partook  of  ;     Thou  being  a 

*  wild  Olive  Tree.     Here  this  one  Thing  is  plain  beyond 

*  Difpute,  w'z.  That  the  fame  Privileges  from  which  the 

*  unbelieving  Je-vos  were  broken  off,    the  fame  were  the 

*  Believing  Gentiles  graffed  into.'  Anf.  The  Text  does 
only  afTert,  that  Believing  Gentiles  did  partake  with  the 
Believing  Jews^  of  the  Root  and  Fatnefs  of  the  Olive 
Tree,  /,  e.  Spiritual  and  faving  Benefits,  in  Unity  in  the 
New  Teftament  Church  :  But  does  not  aflert  that  the 
Gentiles  were  graffed  into  the  JewiJhChnxch^  as  it  flood 
under  the  Law  ;  or  that  the  jewejh  Church  State  conti- 
nued under  the  Gofpel  Difpenfation.  Nay  the  Text  does 
not  affert  that  any  of  the  Infant  Seed  of  either  J^ws  or 
Gentiles  were  entitled  to  Baptifm  by  Birth-Privilege,  or 
foederal  Holinefs.  From  this  Place,  under  Confideration, 
thefe  Conclufwns  may  properly  be  deduc'd,<:oaci»rrent 

D  3  v..sr 


(  54  ) 
with  other  Places  of  Holy  Scripture,  i.  That  nothing 
Ihort  of  Faith  in  the  Mejiah  gave  any  of  the  Jews  Admit- 
tance to,  and  a  Standing  in  the  New  Teftament  Church  5 
el(e  why  were  the  unbelieving  Jews  rejected,  notwith* 
itanding  their  being  the  Seed  of  Abraham^  &c  ? 

2.  That  none  of  the  Gentiles  were  admitted  into  the 
New  Teftament  Church,  but  by  Faith  likewife  :  '  Thou 

*  ftandeft  by  Faith.' 

3.  That  the  New  Teftament  Church  is  made  up  of 
profefling  Believers  only. 

4.  That  it  is  the  Apoftle's  Scope  to-  ftiew  the  fpecial 
and  faving  Benefits  which  Believers,  Jews  and  Gentiles^ 
do  enjoy  by  the  Gofpel :  To  have  their  Souls  nourifhed 
by  the  Fatnefs  of  the  Olive  Tree  ;  and  alfo  to  keep  the 
latter  humble  in  their  high  Enjoyments. 

Now  upon  the  Whole,  inafmuch  as  the  Apoftle  docs 
neither  affert  the  Foederal  Holinefs  of  Believers  Infants, 
jior  give  us  any  Account  of  the  Natural  Offspring  of 
Ctntiles  to  be  included  in  the  Ingrafture,  together  with 
their  Believing  Parents,  we  juftly  reje£l  our  Opponents 
Confequences  on  this  Head,  as  being  altogether  forced, 
and  quite  invalid.  And  the  Point  to  be  proven,  viz,. 
That  Infants  are  Church  Members  under  the  New  Tefta- 
ment Difpenfation,  juft  remains  where  it  was,  viz.  An 
AfTertion  without  Proof,  and  therefore  not  worth  any 
one's  Notice  or  Regard.  Whilft  in  the  mean  Time,  the 
Truth  we  profefs  and  maintain,  That  Profefling  Believers 
are  the  only  proper  Subjeds  of  Baptifm,  like  pure  Gold^ 
ilill  retains  its  Weighty  Worth,  and  Splendor. 

*  A  Third  Scripture  I  advance  (fays  he)  for  Proof  of  the 

*  Point,  is  I  Cor.  vii.  14.    Fgr  the  unbelieving  Hujband  is 

*  JanSiified  by  the  IPlfe,  and  the  unbelieving  Wife  is  fan£ii- 

*  fied  by  the  HuJ})and,  elfe  were  your  Children  unclean,  but 

*  now  are  they  holy.* 

All  that  Mr.  F.  advances  from  the  Scripture  to  ferve 
his  Putpofe,  is  eafily  refuted,  by  obferving  the  Occafion 
of  the  Words,  and  Scope  of  the  Apoftle  in  them,  which 
was  to  refolve  the  Coxinthians  in  a  Cafe  of  Confcicnce, 
refpedling  Divorcement,  ver,  xii.  13.  It  feems  fome 
9inong  them  held  thcmfelves  pqjiluted,  by  being  married 


(    55    ) 

to  Unbelievers,  i  t.  Heathen  Idolaters   (whom  they  ha4 

^a? red  ber;  their  Converfion)  and  thought  therefor. 

Spirting  from  them.     The  Jews  of  old  were  ftriaiy 

?orb^d   to^  marry   with  other  Nations,    Deut.vn     3.  4. 

NelLah  aT  theVformation  (on  the  Return  of  the  Jevjs 

out  of   the  Babylonijh  Captivity,  feverely  pumfhed  thofc 

X  had   married  ftrange  Wives,    m.  xu.     23    25. 

And  E^ra  the  Prieft  taught  them  what  was  the  VV.U  of 

God  fn    hat  Cafe.     Xe  have  tranMef^  and  have  taken 

firame  Wtves    to    encreafe    the  trej^s  / /^rael       Now 

'^iZ/ore  make  ConfcffJunto  the  Lord  God  .fyour  Fathers 

andL  his  Pleafurifand  separate  your^  fromh^ 

^Peotleofthe  Land,  and  from  the  ftrange  Wives     lizra  x. 

fo^ii^    'Tis  not    improbable  that  the  Scruple   ot  the 

CorMians  arofe  upon  the  Confederation  of  God's  former 

Ap         mlt  amon'g  the  Jews     and  fo  thought  them- 

felves  polluted  by  dwelling  with  Infidels,  and  that  it  was 

difXC  to  God.    Their  Queftion  feem'd  to  be  whether 

SMafrlage  was  not  d.ffelved  upon  one's  embracing 

Chriftianity,  and  fo  their  Cohabitation  unlawtu..   _ 

The  Apoftle  refolves  this  Cafe,  that  their  Marriage  is 
not  diflblved,    upon  One's  embracing  Chnftiamty,    and 

the  olh^r  no't  ;  'for  tU  -.^^^-^i;.^*;^;;/:,^^^ 
h  the  mfe,    and  the  unbelieving  IVife  ts  fanmiled  by'  the 

%$and/'  The  Conjugal  Society  of  the  unbehe^mg 

'  Party,    is  fandified    (/.  e.  fays  t-  Mr   Cradoc^k      made 

*  lawful  and  allowed)  to  the  believmg  Party,   ij^^  >;• 
«  c  »     'I  rather  think   (fays  Pool  *  )  't  (u  e,  the  Word 

<%naijied)  fignifies  brought  i"^«  ^^f  ^  ^^f^  J^^^'^tv 

*  Beheier,    without  Offence  to  the  Law  of  God      may 

^  cominue  in  a    Marned  E^-^^  ^^^^  ^"^^^^,t^' ' 
«  low;  and  tlie  State  of  Marriage  is  an  Holy  State,  not- 

*  v^ithftanding  the  Difparity  with  Rf"^"^^^^..^.^: 
«  lieion.'  Elfe  were  your  Children  unclean,  t.i.  it  the 
Diverfity  in  Religion  diflblved  your  Marriage  Covenant, 
rr  "ur  'co-habit^tion,  upon  that  Account,  was  unlaw, 
ful  Your  Children  begotten  fince,  or  in  fuch  a  btate 
.^ould  be  illegitimate,  Sr  Baftards.  But  it  -  "Ot  fo,  f^ 
fch«  Unbeliever  is  fandified  by  the  Believer    (mads  law^^ 

I  Apoft,  HJft.  F»J«  x^J'       *  *"  ^*«« 


(    56    ) 

Jul)  your  Marriage  is  not  difannulled,  or  made  void  ; 
but  you  are  lawful  Hufband  and  Wife,  and  your  Chil- 
dlren  holy,  /'.  e.  born  in  lawful  Wedlock,  or  legitimate 
Children.  " 

This  appears  to  be  the  natural,    unconftrain'd,    and 
genuine  Senfe  of  the  Place.     Here  is  no  Ground  to  con- 
clude,   that  the  Apoftle  was  about  averting  the  Children 
of  Believers  to   be  foederally  Holy,    and  the  Subjeas  of 
IJaptifm,  evenasMr. /".  himfclf  ftatestheQueftion,  viz 
Whether  a  Believer  might  lawfully  dwell  with  an  Un- 
believer,   as  Hufband  and  Wife  ?  '     Now  had  it  been 
unlawful  for  fuch  to  dwell  together  as  Hufband  and  Wife 
vhat  Confequence  could  Mr.  F.  poffibly  infer,    but  that 
which  every  one  knows,  viz.  That  their  Children  would 
be  unclean,  ;.  e.  Baftards  ?     For    furely  nothing  couW 
iol low  an  unlawful  Cohabitation,  but  an  illegitimate,  or 
tinlawful  Offipring.     But  feeing  it  was  lawful  for  fuch  to 
dwell  together  as  Hufband  and  Wife,    what  can  any  one 
rationally  underfland  on  the   other  Hand,    but    that   the 
-Apoflle  meant  their  Children  were  legitimate?  OurGloTs 
eppears  fo  natural  and  genuine,  from  the  Apoflle's  Expref- 
lions,  and  from  the  Queflion,   as  Mr.  F.   himfelf  flates 
It,  that  It  IS  not  readily  overthrown.     Tho'  he  is  pleafed 
^  fay,    that  the    Refutation  of  our  Expofition,    is  eafy. 
Truly  he  mufl  advance  fomething  more  than  he  has  yet 
^one  (or  his  bare  faying,   that  one  of  the  Parents  being  a 
^el.ever,   convey'd  to  the    Children   the   Priviledoe   of 
Church-memberfhip)    before  he  can  refute  it  ;    feeing 
there  is  no  fuch  Thing    (as  our  Opponents  urge)  intima- 
ted in  the  Apoftle's  Difcourfe  ;    nor   can  rationally   be 
<leduc'd  from  his  Words. 

For  the  Corinthians  to  queflion  the  Unlawfulnefs  of 
luch  Cohabitation,  plainly  befpeaks,  they  were  unac- 
quainted with  any  fuch  Thing,  as  the  foederal  Holinefs 
of  Believers  Children  ;  which  they  could  not  have  been 
Ignorant  of,  if  the  Apoflles  had  conflantly  taught  fuch 
iJoarine,  as  our  Opponents  fuggeft. 

Neither  does  our  Argument  afFord  thofe  Confbquen- 
ces,  which  Mr.  F.  would  fain  infer  from  it  :  For  In- 
stance i    I  Tljat  die  Children  of  al]  Unbelievers  are 

JBailards. 


(    57    ) 

Baftards,*  Seeing  there  is  no  Body  queflions  but  Marri- 
age is  lavjfid  z.nd  honourable  in  them- --But  it  was  quefti- 
on'd  among  the  Corinthians^  whether  it  was  lawful  for  a 
BeHever  and  Unbehever,  to  dwell  together  as  Hufband 
and  Wife  :  The  Cafes  are  not  Parallel,  therefore  his 
Inference  is  falfe. 

To  what  Purpofe  does  he  tell  us,  that  this  is  the  fame 
Word,  which  the  Apoftles  ufed  in  their  Epiftles  to  the 
Churches  ?  Tois  ogiois,  to  the  Saints,  or  Holy  :  There 
is  no  Reafon  to  conclude  from  thofe  Epiftles,  that  the 
Apoftles  fent  them  to  Infants,  together  with  their  Parents. 
Neither  will  it  hold,  becaufe  Church  Members  are  call- 
ed Jgi(fiy  Holy,  that  therefore  the  Holinefs  here  attribu- 
ted to  Children,  proves  them  to  be  Church-members  ; 
for  the  Church-members,  to  whom  the  Apoftles  wrote, 
were  called  holy- Not  becaufe  they  were  born  of  Be- 
lieving Parents,  but  becaufe  they  were  called  of  God, 
Rom.  i.  7.  I  Cor.  i.  2.  And  the  Apoftles  like  wife  (hew 
•which  Way  they  were  called,  viz.  By  the  preaching  of 
the  Gofpel,  2  The/,  ii.  14.  Can  any  Thing  then  be 
more  vain  and  abfurd,  than  for  Mr.  F.  to  infmuate,  that 
Believers  Infants  may  be  called  Holy,  in  the  fame  Senfe 
that  thofe  Church -members  were  fo  denominated,  viz. 
p>om  the  inward  Work  of  Grace  begun  in  their  Souis, 
and  an  outward  Profeilion  of,  and  Conformity  to  Gof- 
pel Truths  in  their  Lives,  when  there  is  no  fuch  Thing 
mentioned  concerning  thefe  Children  ?  Are  they  faid  to 
be  called  of  God,  Faithful  Brethren  ?  Is  their  Faith 
ipoken  of  throughout  the  World  ?  Is  their  Love,  Pati- 
ence and  Hope,  any  where  commended  ?  Is  their  Gof- 
pel Obedience  manifeft  ?  Not  at  all.  Hence  it  is  fafe 
to  conclude,  that  thofe  Children  are  not  called  holy  in 
the  Senfe  that  Church-members  are  fo  denominated  ; 
but  truly  and  properly  in  the  Way  I  have  before  obfer- 
ved,  however  contrary  it  may  be  to  Mr.  F's  received 
Opinion.     And  how  impertinent  is  Mr.  F's  Queflion  ! 

*  I  would  afk,   why  the  Anabaptifts  may  not  as  well  un- 

*  derftand  the  Apoftle  to  write  to  thofe  in  Rome,  Corinthy 

*  or  GaJaiia,    who  were  not  Baftards,    as  to  underftand 

*  holy  in  this  Text,   to  be  only  legitimate  ?'    Jnf.  It 

feenis 


(    5?    ) 

lecms  by  Mr.  F.  that  if  we  underftand  the  Word  td 
he  legitimate  in  this  Place,  we  muft  neceflarily  under- 
l^aiid  the  Apoftle  to  write  to  thofe  at  Rome,  ^c.  who 
were  not  Bailards.  But  I  think  I  have  {hewn  a  very 
great  Difference  in  the  Cafe.  As  there  is  nothing  that 
moves  us  to  think  the  Apoftle  msant  Legitimacy,  when 
jbe  wrote  to  the  Saints  at  Rome  ;  fo  neitlier  is  there  any 
Thing  here,  that  inclines  us  to  believe  he  meant  Federal 
Molinefs^  when  he  refolved  the  Corinthian  Doubts. 

But  being  weary  of  ftanding  to  Anfwer  trivial  Objec- 
tions, I  proceed  to  his  Fourth,  and  laft:  Scripture,  ad- 
vanc'd  to  prove  Infants  Church-memberfhip  :  Namely, 
Mark  X.  13,  14.  y^nd  they  brought  young  Children  t9 
hinit  that  he  Jhould  touch  them  (not  baptize  them)  and 
his  Dijciples  rebuked  thofe  that  brought  thein  :  But  when 
Jefus  faixj  it,  he  was  much  difpleafed,  and  /aid  unto  them^ 
Suffer  the  little  Children  to  come  unto  me,  and  forbid  them 
not:  For  of fuch  is  the  Kingdom  of  God.  v.  16.  And  he 
took  them  up  in  his  ArmSy  put  his  Hands  upon  them.,  and 
ilejfed  them.  It  feems  wherever  our  Opponents  find  any 
Thing  fpoken  of  Children,  they  prefently  fancy  their 
Baptifm  is  not  very  far  ofF,  however  foreign  to  their 
Purpofe  it  be.  Mr,  F.  having  fail'd  of  producing  any 
Thing  like  a  Proof,  hitherto,  for  Infants  Church- mem- 
berfliip,  or  their  Right  to  Baptifm,  hopes  to  find  fome 
Relief  from  this  Place  now  under  Confideration  ;  from 
•which  he  obferves  divers  Particulars,  but  feems  to  be  ac 
a  great  Lofs  upon  which  of  them  to  fix,  as  a  certain 
Ground  of  his  Practice.     One  while  he  tells  us,    *  The 

*  Difciples  forbad  the  Children  to   be  brought  to  Chrift, 

*  as  the  Anabaptifts  now  do.'—Intimating,  that  thofe 
Children  were  brought  to  Chrift  with  a  Defign  to  have 
them  baptized.     But  a  little  after  fays,     ^  The  Anabap- 

*  tifts  cannot  prove  that  thofe  Children  were  not  baptized 

*  before  by  John  the  Baptift  ;    which   feems  the  mote 

*  probable,    in    that   Chrift  laid    his  Hands   on    them, 

*  which  was  an  extraordinary  Ordinance  then  in  ufe,    and 

*  always  adminifired  after  Baptifm.*  If  thefe  Children 
were  baptized  before  by  fohn  ('as  Mr.  F.  thmks  it  to  be 
il^^morf  prohtlf  Opima)    CSfttiOly  tbeo  they  were  not 


(     59     ) 

brought  to  CLrift  with  any  View  to  have  them  baptized, 
unlefs  their  Parents  (or  whoever  brought  them)  were  for 
having  their  Children  ituice  baptized  ;  which  is  not  very 
likely.  If  the  Difciples  forbad  them  to  come*to  Chrift, 
for  Impofttion  of  Hands,  the  Baptiftscan't  atallbe  charg'd 
with  forbidding  Children  to  come  to  Chrift  ;  for  our 
Opponents  don't  plead  that  they  have  a  Right  to  that 
Extraordinary  Ordinance*  'Tis  fome  odd  kind  of  Talk 
to  fay  that  we  forbid  thofe  to  come,  which  nobody  offer* 
to  bring.  Here  is  fome  mighty  Refemblance  fure,  be- 
twixt the  Difciples  and  Anabaptifts  !  when  the  Cafes 
you  fee,  are  no  Ways  parallel.  At  this  Rate  of  arguing, 
it  may  be  as  juftly  faid  *  The  Difciples  then  forbad 
'  Children  to  be  brought  to  Chrift,  as  the  Prefbyterians 

*  now  do'— In  not  admitting  them  to  Impofition  of 
Hands,  or  to  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  when,  in  the  mean 
Time,  Nobody  offers  to  bring  them. 

But  if  his  Meaning  is,  that  the  Baptifts  forbid  Children 
to  be  baptized,  as  he  fuppofesthe  Difciples  forbad  them  to 
come  to  that  Extraordinary  Ordinance.-- He  Ihould  have 
exprefs'd  himfclf  fo,  and  not  have  labour'd  to  infmuatc 
into  the  Minds  of  his  Readers,  That  the  Difciples  were 
rebuk'd  for  that  Fault,  which  he  would  fain  Charge  upon 
the  Baptifts,  viz.  Forbidding  Children  to  be  brought  to 
Baptifm,  when  no  fuch  Thing  is  mentioned  in  the  Text, 
nor  urged  from  it  by  our  Opponent. 

But  then  it  feems  here  is  a  new  modelled  Argument, 
which  Mr.  i^    would   frame   from    thofe   Words,    viz, 

*  Chrift  laid  his  Hand  upon  them  Children  as  baptized  Per- 
«  fons,  therefore  Children  are  to  be  baptized.'  Anf.  It  does 
not  feem  a  very  difficult  Tajh,  to  prove  th^t  thofe  Infant? 
were  not  baptized  by  John  (if  we  muft  be  ftill  fet  upon  to 
prove  a  Negative)  not  only  from  what  Mr.  F.  fays, '  The 

*  Scriptures  vyhich    require  Faith  and  Repentance,    are 

*  addrefled  only  to  grown  Perfons,  and  not  to  Infants* 
and  we  find  John  baptized  none  upon  any  other  Account  ; 
but  even  Uomiat  Carriage  andS^/??«t'/a«r  of  the  Difciples 
on  this  Occafion  :  For  had  it  been  the  known  Cuftom  of 
John  to  baptize  Infants,  and  the  conftant  Pradice  of 
Chrift  to  lay  his  Hands  upoft  them  as  baptis&ed  Perfons. 


(    6o    } 

It  is  no  ways  rcafcnable  to  imagine  that  the  Difciples 
would  have  cntertain'd  fuch  wrong  Notions  ahut  these 
v  i7f^  Pr;w/^^a,  more  than  others  (unjcfs  thefe  were 
the  Children  ot  unbeheving  Parents,  that  they  would  not 
have  brought  to  Chrjft)  Co  as  to  forbid  them  that  brought 

rT  '^'r^''!'^  ^  S"^'^  ^^^'g"  --  No,  the  very  Conduct 
ot  the  Difctplcs  on  this  Occafion,  evidently  befpeaks  there 
was  no  fuch  Thing  pradifed  by  Chrift,  cither  to  order 
Infants  to  be  baptized,  or  to  lay  his  Hands  upon  them  as 
baptized  Perfons  ;  and  let  our  Opponents  fhew  the  Con- 
trary at  their  Leifure. 

Bifliop  Tay/or*  in    his  Reprefentation    of  the  Baptifts 
Argument     hath    thefe  Words,     '  From  the  Adion  of 
Lhrilt  s  BJeffing  Infants,  to  infer  that  they  are  to  be 
baptized,  proves  nothing  fo  much  as  that  there  is  great 
Want  of  better  Arguments  ;    the  Conclufion  would  be 
with   more  Probability  derived  thus  :    Chrift   blefled 
*   Children,  and  fo  difmi/Ted    them,    but  baptized    them 
Jiot,  therefore  Infants  are  not  to  be  baptized.' 
By  the  Way,  Ifhalljuftobferve,  that  tho'  Mr.  F.  calls 
Imporition  of  Hands  (which  was  always  adminiftred  after 
Baptifm)    an  Extraordinary  Ordinance  then  in  Ufe    (or 
perhaps  more  properly  an  Ordinance  then  ufed  in  extraor- 
d.naryTimes)  Yet  I  am  perfuaded  he  will  not  quickly  fhew 
that  it  js  now  abolifhed  ;  when,  befidesthe  Place  he  cites 
VIZ.  /f^sxix.  5,  6,  he  confults^^Tj  viii.  14—17.  and  Heb. 
6.  2.  where  we  find  it  was  adminiftred  to  baptized  Be- 
lievers as  fuch,  and  to  be  one  of  the  Six  Foundation  Prin- 
ciples of  the  Doarine  of  Chrift  j    which  Account  does 
not  well  fuit   with   laying  on  of  Hands  upon   Officers 
in  the  Church  :    For  as  the  whole  Gofpel  was  confirm 'd 
by  Signs  and  Wonders,   and  divers  Miracles,  and  Gifts 
of  the  Holy  Ghoft  in  general,    fo  was  every  Ordinance 
confirm'd  in  particular,    and    amongft  the  reft,   this  of 
Impofuion  of  Hands  upon  baptized  Believers,    was  alfo 
ratified  and  confirmed  by  the  extraordinary  Out-pouring 
of  the  Gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  which  accompanied  it, 
jfSs  XIX.  6.     Befides  the  Thing   fignified  thereby,    viz. 
the  Gift  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,   in  his  fandifying,  comfort- 
ing, and  fealmg  Operations  and  Influences,  is  the  perpetual 


I 


(    6i    ) 

Privilege  of  all  Believers  in  common,  throughout  all 
Ages,  "John  vii.  37.  Hence  we  have  no  Ground  to  con- 
clude this  New  1  eftament  Ordinance,  thus  confirm'd, 
i^c.  to  be  yet  aboliftied  j  but  is  now  to  be  always  admi~ 
n'ljlred  after  Baptifm,  as  it  was  in  Apojiolic  Times.  And 
for  a  Lamentation  it  may  be  faid,  that  our  Opponents 
have  loft  the  Order  and  Beauty  of  the  Gofpel  Church. 
This  Ordinance  of  laying  on  of  Hands  upon  baptized 
Believers,  is  quite  loft  amongft  them.  And  Baptifm  for 
the  moft  Part  is  gone  to  the  very  Name. 

Now  feeing  Infants  Right  to  Baptifm  is  not  found  in 
this  Text,  and  our  Opponents  don't  brmg  their  Infants  to 
have  Hands  laid  upon  them,  if  fuch  a  Thing  was  in- 
tended here,  confequently  their  Noife  and  Clamour 
about  our  denying  Baptifm  to  Infants,  difappears  like 
a  Bubble  on  the  Water,  or  Smoke  in  the  Air. 

*  The  Anabaptifts  argue   Hays  he)  that  thefe  Infants 

*  were  only  propos'd  as  Emblems  of  Humility,  Meeknefs, 

*  ^c*  If  they  did  fo,  they  would  not  differ  much  from 
fome  learned  Paedo-baptifts  in  this  Point.  I  have  perus'd 
divers  Baptifts  Authors  upon  the  Place,  and  I  don't 
find  them  arguing  in  fuch  Manner.  But  whether  this 
Allegation  be  taken  out  of  his  *  common  Stcrehoufe  Mr. 
Sydenham^  or  out  of  Mr.  Flavel,  or  this  be  a  Fiflion  of  his 
own,  I  am  not  concern'd,  nor  {hall  I  at  thisTime  take  any 
further  Notice  of  it,andallhisReafoning  upon  it;  but  only 
cite  the  Judgment  of  fome  Padobaptijis  upon  the  Occa- 
fion.  t  The  AJfemhly  of  Divines  fay  on  ^t^it  13.     '   Tht 

*  Difciples  rebuked  them  (not  the  Children  but  thofe  that 

*  brought  them,  Mark  10.  13.    They  thought  it  a  Thing 

*  troublefome  to  Chrift  and  unfit  for  him  to  meddle  with 

*  Children  who  could  not  be  taught,  for  want  ofUnder- 

*  ftanding,  and  needed  no  Healing  by  his  Miracles,    ver, 

*  14,  Of  fuch  is  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven)  Ye  have  no  Rea- 

*  fon   to   blame  them  for   bringing  jChildren  to  me,  for 

*  they  may  be  fuch  as  have  Intereft  to  the  Kingdom  of 

*  Heaven,  as  well  as  others  of  riper  Years  ;  and  unless 

*  YE  BE  LIKE  THEM,  ye  (hall  never  come  there.* 

Cartwright 
•J 

*  V»de  hisprifucf,  Pige  7%  f  Awiotitioni  on  Mittrij,  PtiatjA 
Aano  164J, 


r  62  ) 

t  Cartwr'i^ht  hath  thefe  Words  :     «  And  as  touching 

^  this  Blefling  of  Children  and  Jmpofition  of  Hands  upon 

them,  it  is  peculiar  unto  our  Saviour  Chrift  ;  ufed  nei- 

*  ther  by  his  Difciples  nor  by  his  Apoftles,  either  before 

*  or  after  his  Afcenfion  :    Whcreunto  rtiaketh,   that  the 

*  Children  being  brought,  that  he  fhould  pray  over  them  ; 

*  he  did  not  pray  for  them,  but  blefTed  them,   that  is  to 

*  fay,    commanded  them  to  be  blefled,  thereby  to  (hew 

*  his  Divine  Power.     Thefe  being  alfo  yet  Infants  j— 

*  being  alfo  in  all  Likelihood  unbaptized'  According  to 
him  then,  Chrift  did  not  lay  his  Hands  upon  them  as 
baptized  Perfons. 

'  Upon  the  whole  (CaysvMr.  i^l)  we  may  fafely  under- 

*  flaiid  the  Words,  as  if  our  Lord    had   faid.    The  In- 

*  fants  of  fuch  Parents  as  believe  in  me,   fuch  Infants,  I 

*  fay  are  to  be  brought  to  me,  and  treated  as  Members  of 
'  theVifible  Church  -yfor  of  fuch  is  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven* 
Anf.  There  are  thefe  Difficulties  in  the  Way,  to  under- 
ftand  thefe  Words  thus  with  Safety,  i.  Chrift  did  not 
fay,  fuffer  the  little  Children  of  believing  Parents  to  come 
to  me  ;  but  indefinitely,  Suffer  the  little  Children  to  come  to 
me  ;  after all^  Mr.  /".never canihew  that  Chrift  the  Savi- 
our, afts  with  that  Partiality,  and  narrowncfs  of  Spirit  as 
he  is  pleafed  to  write.;  even  to  admit  the  Infants  of 
Church- Members,  and  to  rejeft  thofe  of  Non-Members* 

2.  Becaufe  Chrift  gave  no  Orders  to  baptize  them,  nor 
inform'd  us  that  they  were  Subje^s  of  any  Gofpel  Ordi- 
nance ;  And  for  any  to  adminifter  Baptifm  to  them, 
is  nothing  kfs  than  to  be  wife  above  what  is  written.  'Tis 
ftlfo  a  bold  Encroachment  upon  Chrift's  Kingly  Preroga- 
tive, to  enjoin  the  Baptizing  of  Infants,  which  the  Lord 
Jefus  has  no  where  commanded. 

The  Expreflions  of  our  Opponents  on  another  Occafi- 
on,  are  pertinent  here,  f  *  The  making  of  new  reli- 
gious Laws,  feems  to  us  to  be  an  Invafton  upon  the 
Kingly  Office  of  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift,  to  whofe Roy- 
alty it  peculiarly  belongs  to  give  Laws  to  his  Church. 
Hence  the  Apoftle  James  informs  us>  that  there  is  one 
Law  giver    (i,  e.  one  only,    who  is  exclufive  of  all 

'  others, 
J  Oq  Mttt.  19 .  P«g.  96.    f  Apology  of  Biunfwlck  Ptcibytwy.  Pag.  54* 


(    63    ) 

*  others)    whf  is  ahle  to  fave   and  cUJlroy  t  Subjoining, 

*  'vuho  art  thou  then  that  judgeji  another^    James  iv.   i2» 

*  Col.  i.  l8.   Chrift  is  the  Read  of  the  Body,    the  Churchy 

*  he   is  conftituted   the   King    of  Zion:     Now    if  the 

*  Church  of  Chrift  has  but  one  Head,    one  King,    one 

*  Law  giver,    how  can  any  Men  on  Earth  make  Law« 

*  in  Addition  to  Chrift's,  for   the  Government  of  his 

*  Subjects  in    rehgious,  Matters,     without   making   the 

*  Church    a    monftrous     Body,     with    many    Heads  ? 

*  Without  commencing  Kings  jin  his  Kingdom,    or  ra- 

*  ther  fetting  up  a  Kingdom  of  their  own,  in  Oppofition 

*  to  his  ?     If  making  new  rehgious  Laws,    as  to  their 

*  Matter,  or  adding  new  Penalties  to  old  ones,    be  not 

*  A(5ls  of  kingly  Power,  we  defire  to  know  what  is  V 
We  arc  not  afraid  to  affert  publickly,    that  no  Law 

given  by  Chrift,  for  baptizing  Infants,  can  be  found 
any  where  regiftred  in  the  Rolls  of  divine  i.  aws  :  There- 
fore it  muft  be  done  without  Law,  or  elfe  by  a  Law  of 
Mens  making  ;  which  is  attended  with  all  the  dreadful 
Confequences  of  fuch  a  Practice,  as  exprefs'd  in  the  cited 
Paragraph— -There  is  therefore,  very  good  Reafon  why 
we  can't  fafely  underfland  the  Words,  accordinsi;  to  Mr„ 
i^'s  Comment  upon  them  :  But  we  may  very  falely  con- 
clude, that  there  is  not  any  Thing  in  thofe  Words,  which 
oppofes  the  ftated  Order,  and  revealed  Will  of  Chrift  in 
the  Gofpel,  v'm.     *  That   Profefling   Believers  are   the 

*  proper  Subje<fts  of  Baptifm.* 

'  I  have  methinksj  proven  from  this  Text,   the  Con- 

*  firmation    of   Children's    Church  memberfhip,     fronn 

*  which  it  willeafily  follow,  that  Baptifm  is  ther  Right  % 

*  or  elfe  let  the  Anabaptifts  prove,   that  there  are  forae 

*  Church  members  who  ought  not  to  be  baptized  ;    but 

*  this  they  cannot.'  Mr.  F.  muft  excufe  me,  if  I  (liould 
happen  to  miftakc  his  Meaning  any  where^  for  at  Times 
he  feems  to  forget  himfelf  what  he  is  about  ;  an  Inftance 
q{  it  we  have  in  this  odd  Piece  of  Bufinefs  now  before  us, 
which  he  has  put  us  upon,  viz.  to  prove  that  there  are 
fome  Church- members  who  ought  not  to  be  baptized.  One 
while  he  is  in  the  Humour  to  tell  us,   §   *  That  Baptifm 

*  i» 


(  64  ) 
'  is  an  initiating  Ordinance,  whereby  Perfons  are  recel- 
'  ved  into  the  Church  :'  And  tn  call  the  Church  the 
School  of  Chrift,  and  that  Baptifin  is  the  Door  ot  En- 
trance into  that  Sch.-jol,  and  that  Infants  are  capable  of 
being  entred  into  it  by  that  Door,  But  it  feems  there  is 
belides  that,  another  Door  of  Entrance  into  the  Church, 
viz.  by  natural  Generation,  or  as  Mr.  Durham  \\  chufes 
to  exprefs  it,  by  Birth-right.  So  that  a  vifible  Chriitian 
begets  a  villble  Chriftian,  for  fo  1  fuppofe  they  account  all 
Church-members  to  be. 

Such  Notions  and  pretty  Fancies,  may  indeed  pafs 
with  thofe,  who  are  wedded  to  their  tond  Opinions  ;  but 
will  be  deemed  mere  Abfurdities  and  Fooleries,  when 
compared  with  the  Account  the  Scriptures  give  us,  of 
the  New-Teftament  Churches,  and  their  Members. 

Mr.  F.  may  know,  that  I  am  not  concern'd  at  all  to 
Refolve  him  in  this  Point,  'till  he  firfl  makes  appear, 
that  Perfons  are  vifible  Church-members  before  they  arc 
baptized. 

We  are  upon  this  diredlv  informed,  howunbaptized 
Members  of  the  vifible  Church  may  be  excommunicated, 
viz.     '  If  we  deny  fuch  Infants  a  Right  to  the  initiating 

*  Seal  of  the  Covenant,  we  thereby  caft  them  out  of  the 

*  Church. '--Probably  he  means  if Baptifm  is  deny'd  them, 
thev  are  thereby  caft  the  Out  fide  of  the  Pale  of  the  Church 
-—For  after  Baptifm  it  feems,  they  are  only  within  the 
Pale  of  the  Church,  as  they  call  it,  till  they  grow  up  to 
Years  of  Difcretion--But  if  all  they  pretend  to  baptize  are 
Church- Members,  their  Scheme  juft  ferves  to  fill  the 
New-Teftament  Church  with  Unbelievers,  and  to  build 
it  up  of  unprepared  Materials.  The  true  Reafon  why 
the  Baptifts  don't  baptize  their  Infants,  is  not  for  want  of 
Love  and  AfFedtion  to  their  Offspring,  but  for  want  of 
a  pofitive  Precept,  or  Scripture  Example,  to  counte- 
nance fuch  a  Praftice.  'Tis  not  therefore  without 
Caufe,  that  they  withftand  the  unwarranted  Pradice  of 
their  Opponents. 

'  Now  (fays  he)  tho'  the   Name   of  Baptifm  is  not 

*  found  in  thefe  Texts,    yet  we  find  what  may  be  as  fa- 

*  tisfying  and  convincing  to  unbyafTed  Minds,    that  are 

*  even 
I    On  the  KtvcUtiooti    P*ge  489t 


(    65    ) 

'  even  moderately  judicious.'    Reply.  If  Mr.  i^  means  by 
an  unbyafledMindjaPerfon  that  Hands  inclin'd  to  neither 
b|de,    'tis    very  ftrange  he  (hould   affert  there    is  Mattef 
of  equal  Satisfaction  and  Conviction  to  unbyafs'd  Minds, 
to  be  found  in  tljcfe  Texts,  that  Infants  are  to  be  bapti- 
zed, as  if  it  had  been  exprefs'd  in  the  Words.     1  am  apt 
to  believe  it  would  be  more  convincing  to  unbyafs'd  Minds, 
and   more  fatisfying  to  byafs'd  Minds  too,  if  there  was  a 
Command  or  Example  to  be  found  for  Infant- baptifm, 
in  thefe,    or  any  other  Texts  in  the  Bible,  than  now  it 
is  :  But  Mr,  F.  tells  us,    "  For  my  Part,  I  cannot  wifh 
for  clearer  Evidence  to  convince  me  that  Believers  In- 
fants  have  a  Right    to  Baptifm,      than   the   Scriptures 
quoted  do  afFord."     Reply.     'Tis   not  poffible  for  me  to 
enter  into  the  Secrets  of  his  Mind,  to  obferve  the  unfeen 
Workings  of  his  Wifhes,  and  Satisfaction  in  the  Point  ; 
yet  in  the  mean  Time,    I  mull:  enjoy  my  own  Way  of 
Thinking  in  the  Cafe.     But  to  the  Matter  in  Hand.     We 
have  trac'd  this  Bufinefs  fo  far,    and  could   not  find  any 
Thing  like  a  Pillar  to  fupport  it  j  but  here  at  length,  we 
happen'd  juft  to  meet  with  one  great  Supporter  of  that 
otherwife  tottering  Caufe,    of  Infant-  baptifm.     We  had 
for  fome  Time  ago,    a   ftrong  Sufpicion  from   current 
Reports,  that  the  Bufinefs  was  carried  on  after  fome  fuch 
Manner  :    But  fince  our  Opponents  have  publifh'd  it  'n\ 
Print,    we  have  got  the  Certainty  of  it  ;    and  'tis  to  be 
hop'd  they   will  not  attempt  to  deny  their  own  Prints. 
The  Invention  is  ths  :  The  Minifter  declares  he  is  fatis- 
fied  that  Infants  have  a  Right  to  Baptifm",    then    if  any 
amongft  them  happens  to  doubt  of  the    Validity  of  his 
Infant- baptifm,  becaufe  he  can't  find  a  divine  Injftitution'^ 
for  it;    the  Bufinefs  is    carried    on    fometbing  after  this 
Manner  ;  The  Minifter  declares,  that  he  is  fatisfied  that 
.Infants  have  a  Right  to  Baptifm  ;  and  do  you  pretend 
to  know  better  than  he  ?    Do  you   think  he  is  in  the 
wi-cng  ?    Do  you  fuppofe  him  to  be  unbapti-£d  ?    Can 
you  imagine  he  is  not  in  Covenant  with  God  ?  No  Mini- 
fter ?  Not  fo  much  as  a  vifible  Chriftian  ?    Nor  a  Mem- 
ber of  the  vifible  Church,  iSc    All  thisferves  to  furprize 

E  ani 

•  Divlae  Rlgit  of  Infant- laptifaj.    Page  4j  iii 


(    66    ) 

And  perplex  the  poor  Enquirer  !  but  yet  affords  no  Scrip- 
tural Ground  to  quiet  his  Confcience  j  and  if  he  is  not 
ftunn'd  with  thefe  mafterly  Strokes,  why  the  Minifter  or 
another,  has  a  whole  Heap  of  Blocks  to  caft  in  his  Way  ; 
fuch  as  thefe,  f  As  to  yourfelf,  it  greatly  concerns  you  to 
confider  what  you  are  about  ;  if  you  reje6l  your  Baptifnr 
25  a  Nullity,  you  rejt.<St  all  the  publick  Ordinances  of  the 
Gofpel  you  have  been  priviledg'd  with.  Are  you  going 
to  caft  Contennpt  upon  the  Head  of  the  Church,  that  he 
has  for  fo  long  Time  wholly  defcrted  all  the  Churches 
upon  Earth  ?  If  Infant- baptiim  is  not  right,  he  has  left 
them  without  a  Miniftry,  without  Ordinances,  and 
without  the  inftituted  Means  of  Salvation.  It  concerns 
you  ferioufly  to  confider  how  uncharitably  you  offend 
againft  all  the  Generation  of  God's  Children,  to  repre- 
fent  the  whole  Church  for  fomany  Hundreds  of  Years,  and 
very  much  the  greatefb  Part  of  it  at  prefent  to  be  in  a  State 
of  Heathcnifm,  without  any  Hopes  of  Salvation,  but  from 
the  uncovenanted  Mercies  of  God. ---It  concerns  you  to 
confider  what  Indignity  you  offer  the  bleffed  Spirit --and 
how  you  may  expe£l  that  God  will  refent  your  Renunci- 
ation of  your  Covenant  Relation  to  him,  ^c.  Thefe, 
•with  Mens  profefling  they  could  burn  at  a  Stake  for 
Inf?nt-baptifm,  and  fuch  like,  are  great  fwelling  Words 
of  Vanity,  and  jufl  ferve  as  a  Specimen^  to  let  the 
World  know  in  what  Manner  that  Scripturelefs  Pra6tice 
is  fupported.  For  by  fuch  Ways  they  keep  the  Crouds 
in  awe,  and  terrify  thofe  amongfl  them,  who  at  any 
Time  queftion  \.\\t  Falidity  of  their  Infant- baptifm— -See- 
ing they  have  no  Scripture  to  prove  it,  they  labour  by 
thefe  artful  Infinuations^  and  detejiable  Methods  to  keep 
thtm  in  perpetual  Fetters  of  human  Inveniim^  put  upon 
them  whilft  Infants,  trom  giving  due  Obedience  to  the 
Lord  Jefus,  according  to  his  Appointment  in  the  Gof- 
pel. An  Inflance  of  this  we  have  in  the  Dialogue  now 
hefore  me.  How  many  Perfons  have  there  been  from 
Time  to  Time,  who  were  enlightened  to  fee  the  Truth 
and  Order  of  the  Gofpel,  yet  are  kept  back  from  fub- 
mitting  to  it,    becaufc  their  Minilters  tell  them  they  naj^ 

ixpi£i 
•\  Diyinc  RigUt  of  Inf«at-baptiXnii    P»6«8  S>  6i  7«'" 


C  67   ; 

4:KfcSf  that  God  tvill  highly  refent  their  Renouncing  their 
JnfaJit-baptifm,   Sec.  as  it  k  was  a  Sin  to  reform^  and  fhake 
o?i  erroneous  Principles  and  Pra6lices.     Are  not  thefe  the 
very   Methods   the  Papijii  have  ufed    (with  their  Noifc 
about  Jnttquity,  Succcjfion,  Infallibility,  Univerjality,  he.) 
to   keep  the  numerous  Ignorants  attach'd  to  theirJnte- 
reft  ?.     And  where  did  that  anonymous  GentJenian  fur- 
"nifti  himfelf  with  Art-llery  for   the   Field,    but  out   of 
Rome's  Magazine?    Arguments  which  itrike  at  the  very 
Principles  ot  Reformation  !    and   which  Proieftants  have 
long  lince  refuted  and  trodden  down   like  Mire  of  the 
Streets,    when  advanc'd  by   Papifs  in*  Defence  of  their 
fuperflitious  Tradiiions.     But  v/e  muft  fee  them  revived, 
new-drefs'd,  and  marfliall'd  again,  by  Proieftantsagainft 
an  Ordinance  of  Jefus  Chrift,    in  Defence  of  an  human 
Invention    (Infant  baptifm)    fat    up    on    the   Ruins    of 
Chrifl's  facred  Inilitution.      And  what  is  it  to  the  Buiinefs 
in  Hand,  to  tell  us  of  the  Praaiceof  the  Church  for  fo 
many  Ages  paft,    when  the  Man  of  Sin,  was  either  af- 
cending  to,  or  fitting  in  the  Tefnple  of  God,   and  either 
changed  or   corrupted  the  %  Dodrines  and  Ordinances 
of  God's  Houfe  J  when  in  the  mean  Time,    the  Number 
of  God's  People  were  very  ^ew,  exprefs'd  by  two  Witnef- 
fes  ;    The  t;  i:c  Church  feeble  and  obfcure,  compared  to 
a   Woman   Hed   into  the  Wildernefs  :    Whiili   Myfiery 
Babylon,  in  Pomp  and  Grandeur,    called  herfelf  the  true 
Church  !     And   of  as    little  Weight   is   that   Anthor's 
Rcafonings   about   Chrift's  Promifes,    to  prove   Infant»- 
baptifm.     Does  he   think  Chrifl   could   not  make  good 
his  Promifes,    without  being  neceflitated  to  countenance 
2.n  Abufe  and  Corruption   of  his  holy  Inftitution,  as  the 
Baptizing  of  Infants  manifeftly  is  j    becaufe  there  is  not 
the  leaji  Hint  of  it  in  Scripture  ?     In  a  Word,    Let  that 
namelefs  Author,  or  any  other,    prove  if  he  can.  That 
RejeiSling  Infant-baptifm  (which  the  Scripture  no  where 
vouchethj  is  attended  with  all  thefe  frightful  Confequen- 
ces.     Truly   his  Neighbour  was    in  the    Right  of  it,  to 
queftion  the  Validity  of  that,    for  which  he  could  find 

'E^  Z  no 

X   Vid.    Dr.   Goodwm's  Difcourfe  of  theGloryof  theGo^gl;     Vtil.    >?. 
Pa^e  a^.       Dan.  »ii.  ^5.    %  Tiist  ii.  3,  4,    B«v.  xiii.  3. 


(    68     ) 

no  divine  In/iitution  ;  but  poor  Man,  he  a6ted  weakly  in 
ttiking  Satisfadlion  from  his  Miniftcr,  wiihout  his  /hew- 
ing him  a  divine  IVarrant  for  Infant-baptifm,  to  quiet  his 
Confcience.  If  he  is  yet  hving,  I  would  auVife  him,  to 
fearch  the  Scriptures,  and  fee  for  himfclf,  and  act  accord- 
ingly. 

Mr.    F.   further   fays,    *  However   clear  the  Point  be 

*  proven,  our  Opponents  are  bent  upon  it,  not  to  fufFcr 
'  little  Children  to  be   brought  to  Chiift,    but  to  forbid 

*  them.'  Anf.  We  have  followed  him  all  along  from 
Text  to  Text,  and  here  we  do  profefl'edly  declare,  the 
point  is  not  proven  at  all,  nor  anv  Thing  like  it- -And 
this  here  is  much  of  the  fame  Nature  with  what  we  had 
laft  under  Coniideration,  and  fcrvcs  much  to  the  fume 
Ends,  v'iX.  to  fix  their  Aiimireri,  in  their  falfe  Opinions, 
and  to  reprefcnt  the  Baptljis.  as  a  cruel,  he<uly,  felf- 
willed  Sort  of  People  j  bccaufe  they  won't  take  their  Op- 
ponents Confcquences  (which  are  only  a  Heap  of  hlon- 
Sequiturs)  inilead  of  Scriptu  e  Teftimonies,  for  Proof  in 
the  Cafe--  The  Truth  is,  the  Baptifts  (I  hope)  are  bent 
to  ftand  by  the  Rule  of  the  Gofpel,  which  requires  Fruits 
of  Repentance,  and  a  ProfelTion  of  Faith,  m  order  to 
Baptifm  ;  which  Infants  are  incapable  of.  This  opens 
the  Door  for  me  to  enter  diredly  on  the  Confideration 
©f  Mr.  i^'s  4th  Aflertion,  viz, 

'  That  Jntants  are  capable  Subjc61s  of  B.^ptifm.' 
Which    he   labours  to  evincc--ffom  the  Dt^vgn   and 
Signification  of  Baptifm,  viz. 

1.  The  folemn  Dedication  of  the  bapti'iJed  Perfons  to 
God.— 

2.  The  Water  ufed  in  Biptifm,  reprefents  the  Blood 
<yf  Chrift---And  alfo  the  gracious  Influences  of  the  Holy 
Ghoft— -Upon  the  Petufal  of  what  he  favs  on  this  Head, 
I.don'tfind  any  Thing  that  promifes  much  Service  to  his 
Caufe,    or   like  to  be  very  advantageous   to  his  prefcnt 

Purpofe For    fuppofing  Infants  were  capable  Subjech 

of  Baptifm,  yet  if  a  Capacity  to  receive  an  Ordinance 
vas  fufEcient  to  entitle  Perfons  to  the  Reception  of  it,  it 
■would  follow,  that  all  the  Male-Infants  of  the  Heathen- 
NiiUQas  had  as  good  aRi^ht  to  he  circumcifed,  a*  the  be.-d 

0^ 


'(    ^9    ) 

•of  Abraham  bad  4  for  one  was  as  capatiVto  be  the  ?ub- 
]eSt  of  Circunicifion  as  the  other  —If  Mr.  F.  fa}s  they 
had  not,  becaufe  theie  was  no  Command  of  God  for  it. 3 
fo  fay  we  there  is  nonr  fo'  the  baptzing  any  Infants. 

2.  Let  us  turn  up  liic  other  Side  of  his  Argument  here, 
and  fee  how  it  looks  ;  why,  it  appear-^  juft;  tnus,  ^re  the 
Infants  of  zVow  members^  yea  of  wicked  Perfoiis,  uncapabh 
to  be  dedicated  to  God  ?  Or  would  it  be  an v  more  a 
Sin  to  devote  thom  to  God  than  the  Children  of  Church- 
members  ?  Again,  Are  fuch  Infants  incap.ible  of  bt^ing 
Jullified  and  faved  by  the  Blood  of  Ghrift,  and  fancSified 
by  his  Spirit  ?  Or  are  they  Sinners  of  tl^at  Sort,  that  puts 
them  quite  out  of  Capacity  of  Juflification  and  Salvation 
"by  his  Blood,  and  Sanitification  by  his  Spirit  ?  This  can't 
be  faid.  Well,  aie  they  capable  ot  every  great  Thing 
iignified  by  Baptifm,  and  yet  not  capable  of  Bjptifm  it- 
•fe  f  ?  Nay,  what  Sort  o(  Divinity  is  it,  for  them  to  fay 
•they  are  capable  of  the  Thtng  fignified,  but  not  of  the 
Siiin  ;  capable  of  the  Greater,  but  altogether  incapable 
of  the  Leffer  ?  How  abfurd,  irrational,  2nd  defencelefe 
is  their  Pofuion  !  My  Opponents  are  brought  unavoida- 
bly to  this,  either  to  vield  unto  their  own  Argument,  or 
.elfeaflert,  that  all  Infants  of  Non-members,  who  die  in 
Infancy,  are  either  damri'd  or  annihilated,'  Mr.  F.  may 
here  fee  the  Shape  of  his  Argument, on  both  Sides,  that  it 
is  an  Inftrument  which  cuts  himfelf  more,  by  odds,  than 
his  Oi">ponenfs  againfl  whom  it  was  defign'd.  Now  if 
the  Infants  of  Non  members  are  capable  of  thofe  Spiritu- 
al BlcfEngs  (as  none  can  prove  to  the  Contrary)  Mr.  F. 
according  to  his  Principles  is  criminally  guilty,  in  not 
baptizing  thenv  For  there  is  a-s  much  Authority  to  bap- 
tife  the  Infants  of  Non  members,  as  thofe  of  Church- 
members---To  do  one  or  the  other  is  Scripturelefs-— 
And  one  mav  be  done  as  well  as  the  other,  according  to 
this  Argument.  But  if  it  be  faid,  they  are  out  of  Co- 
venant, bV.  I  Anf.  The  Benefits  of  the  Covenant  of 
'Grace  are  not  tied  to  anv  flelhly  Line.  Befides  this  Ob- 
je<5lion  does  not  help  at  al^  in  this  Point  ;  for  the  Argu- 
rfnent  is  taken  from  the  Capaci'y  of  Children.---  And  I 
do  hereby  call  upon  him  to  make  appear,  that  one  Infant 
,E  3  is 


(  70  ) 
Is  more  capable  of  being  juftified  by  the  Blood  of  Chri/!, 
and  fani^ified  by  his  Spirit  than  another  ?  To  this  I  re« 
<Juire  a  dire6l  Anfwer,  and  not  to  be  put  ofF  with  Hiifting 
the  Qucftion  ;  or  elfe  an  ingenuous  Acknowledgment, 
that  no  Argument  can  be  form'd  from  the  Capacity  of 
feme  Infants,  more  than  others  in  this  Cafe,  to  prove 
their  Right  to  Baptifm. 

It  muft  alfo  be  obferv'd,  that  there  is  not  fuch  a/«// 
Agreement  betwixt  our  Opponents  and  us,  about  the  De- 
sign and  Signification  of  Baptifm,  as  Mr.  F.  infmuatcs  : 
For  we  differ  in  the  Senfe  and  Explanation  of  the  firft 
Particular,  viz.  That  Bapiifm  figmfies  the  f^Iemn  Dedi- 
cation of  the  baptized  Perfons  to  God.  We  fav,  that 
Perfons  can  dedicate  none  to  the  Lord  b-/  Bapiifm,  but 
themfelves  ;  which  is  confirm'd  bv  J\  tliofe  Places  of 
Scripture,  which  fpeak  of  the  Ordinance.  Baptifm  be- 
ing a  Gufpel  Duty,  it  necefTIirily  requires  Faith  in  the 
Subjeft,  Heb.  xi.  6.  Mark  xvi.  i6.  Or  elfe  let  our 
Opponents  fhew  that  tliere  are  feme  Gofpel  Duties  which 
may  be  per  form'd  acceptably  to  God  without  Faith  ; 
which  they  cannot  ;  therefore  Faith  is  necefTarily  requi- 
red in  the  Partv  bapt.Z'-d  himfclf,  as  well  as  in  every 
other  Part  of  Gofpel  VVorfhip-— Infants  being  inca- 
pable to  z€t  Fnitli  in  tiie  adorable  Trinity,  at  their  Bap- 
tifm, or  to  anfv,  cr  a  good  Cnnfcience,  by  fubmitting  to 
G''d  therein,  Axaf.  xxvtii.  19.  i  Pet.  iii.  21.  Hence  it 
follows,  that  Parents  (or  others)  can't  bring  their  Infants 
to  he  baptized,  under  Pretence  of  dedicating  them  to 
God  (when  he  has  neither  commanded  them,  nor  pro- 
mifed  them  Acceptance  in  fo  doing)  without  being  guilty 
of  a  very  great  Sin  forbidden  in  the  fecond  Command- 
ment, even  as  our  Opponents  themfelves  explain  it,  -[viz. 
*  That  ufing,  and  any  Ways  approving  any  religious 
'  Worfhip,  not  inflituted  by  God  himfelf  is  there  for- 
bidden, let  the  Pretence  be  what  it  will.  Juft  fuch  is  the 
baptizing  of  Infants :  It  is  as  clear  as  the  Sun  in  its  Meri- 
dian Brightnefs,  Thit  Infant-baptifm  is  no  Inflitution 
of  Gjd,  and  therefore  cannot  be  continued  in,  with- 
out daily  breaking  the  fecond  Commandment.  Be- 
fides,  what  adds  further  to  theSinfulnefs  of  that  Pradlice, 
f  See  the  AOembly's  L>arger  Cateciufoi.  i^» 


(    71     ) 
is,    that  It  is  a  wretched  Abiife  of  a  facred  Gofpel  Ordi- 
nance,   by   adminiftnng  ic  kj  Suhjccis  jnoi  appointed  by 
Cbr.'ft  in  his  Word,    under  die  Pretence  of  dedicating 
their  Children  to  God.  / 

2d  Par^Jci.Ur,  which  Mr.  F.  mentions,  *  That  the 
*  the  Water  in  Baptifm  reprefenrs  rhe  Blood  of  Chrirt.'— - 
TMs  is  not  fo  foon  proved  as  aflerted.  Upon  this  Occa- 
fion,  I  iTiall  cife  the  Opinion  of  the  judicious  and  karn*d 
Mr.  McJe^  on  tit.  3.  5.  quoted  by  Mr.  Hutchinfon  :  § 
la  £>tMjr  Sacrament,  as  ye  well  know,  there  is  the  out- 
ward Symbol  or  Sign,  Res  terrena^  and  the  Signatum^ 
figured  and  reprefented  thereby.  Res  Ccelejiis.  In  ibis 
ot  Baptifm,  the  Sign,  or  Res  Terrena,  is  wafhing  with 
Water  ;  The  Queiiion  is,  what  is  the  Signatum^  the 
Jnvifible  and  Celeftial  Thing  which  anfwcrs  there- 
unto ?  In  our  Catechetical  Explications  of  this  My- 
Itery,  it  is  wont  to  be  affirmed,  to  be  the  Blood  of 
Chriil  J  that  as  Water  wafheth  away  the  Filth  of  the 
EJody,  fo  the  Blood  of  Chrift  cleanfeth  us  from  the 
Guilt  and  Pollution  of  Sin  :  And  there  is  no  Qi^ieftion 
but  the  Blood  of  Chrift  is  the  Fountain  of  all  the  Grace 
and  Good  communicated  to  us,  cither  in  this,  or  any 
other  Sacrament,  or  Myftery  of  the  Gofpel.  But  that 
this  fhould  be  the  Jnttftoichon.,  the  Counter  part,  or 
Thing  figured  by  the  Water  in  Baptifm^  I  believe  not  ; 
becaufe  the  Scripture,  which  muft  be  our  Guide  and 
Direflion  in  this  Cafe,  makes  it  another  Thing,  to 
wit,  the  Spirit  or  Holy  Ghoft  ;  this  to  be  that,  whereby 
the  Soul  is  cleanfed  and  renewed  within,  as  the  Body 
with  Water  is  without.— -Nor  did  the  Fathers,  or 
antient  Church,  as  far  as  I  can  find,  fuppofe  any  other 
Correlative  to  the  Element  in  B.^ptifm  but  this  (the 
Spirit  or  Holy  Ghoftj  of  this  they  ipsak  often  ;  of  the 
Blood  of  Chrifl  they  are  altogether  filent,  in  their  Ex- 
plications of  this  Myftery  ;  many  are  the  AUufions  they 
feek  out  for  the  lUuftration  thereof,  and  fome  perhaps 
forced  ;  but  this  of  the  Water,  fignifying  or  having 
any  Relation  to  the  Blood  of  Chrift,  never  comes 
amongft  tham,  which  were  impoffible,  if  they  had  not 
E  4  '  fuppofed 

§    Treatife  concerning  the  QoTcnaat  of  Baptifni|  Page  84,  ^c 


(  72  ) 
fuppofed  fome  other  Thing  figured  by  the  Water  than 
it,  which  barred  them  from  falling  on  that  Conceit. 
The  like  Silence  is  to  be  obfcrved  in  our  Liturgy,  where 
the  Holy  Ghoft  is  more  than  once  parallel  with  the 
Water  in  Baptifm,  Wafhing  and  Regeneration  attri- 
buted thereunto  ;  but  no  fuch  Notion  of  the  Bbod  of 
Chrift  ;  and  that  the  Opinion  thereof  is  Novel,  may  be 
gathered,  becaufe  fome  Lutheran  Divines  make  it  pe- 
culiar and  proper  to  the  Followers  of  Calvin. 
"  VVhatfoever  it  be,  it  hath  no  Foundation  in  ^ipture  ; 
and  we  muft  not  of  our  own  Heads  aflip;n  Significations 
to  Sacramental  Types  without  fome  Warrant  thence  : 
For  whereas,  fome  conceive  thofe  two  Exprcfiions  of 
RoNtifmos,  or  Sprinkling,  of  the  Blood  of  Chrift,  and  of 
our  being  wafhed  from  our  Sins  in  (or  by)  his  Blood, 
do  intimate  fome  fuch  Matter,  they  are  furely  mifla- 
ken  ;  for  thofe  ExprefTions  have  Reference  not  to  the 
Water  of  Baptifm  in  the  New  Teftament,  but  to  the 
Rite  and  Manner  of  Sacrificing  in  the  Oid,  where  the 
Altar  was  wont  to  be  fprinkled  with  the  Blood  of  the 
Sacrifices  which  were  ofi'ered,  and  that  which  was  un- 
clean, purified  with  the  fame  Blood  :  Whence  is  that 
elegant  Difcourfe  o(  St.  Paul  {He//,  g.)  comparing  the 
Sacrifice  of  the  Law  vi^ith  that  of  Chrift  upon  the  cfrofs, 
as  much  the  better.  And  that  whereas  in  the  Law, 
almo/l  all  Things  are  pnrijied  zvith  Blood,  (o  much  more 
the  Blood  of  Chrift,  who  offered  bimfelf  without  Spot  to 
God,  cleanfeth  our  Confciences  from  dead  Works  ; 
but  that  this  Wafhing,  that  is,  Cleanfing  by  the  Blood 
of  Chriff,  fhould  have  Reference  to  Baptifm,  where  is 
that  to  be  found  ?  I  fuppofe  they  will  not  alledge  the 
Water  and  Blood  which  came  out  of  our  Saviour's 
Side,  when  they  pierced  him  ;  for  that  is  taken  to  fi^- 
nify  the  two  Sacraments  ordained  by  Chrift  ;  that  of 
Blood,  theEucharft,  of  Water,  Baptifm.  I  add  (be- 
caufe perhaps  fome  Men's  Fancies  arc  corrupted  there- 
with) that  there  was  no  fuch  Thing  as  Sprinkling,  or 
Rantijmos  ufed  in  Baptifm  in  the  Apoftles  Time,  nor 
many  Ages  after  them  ;  and  that  therefore  it  is  no  Way 
probable,  that  Sprinkling  the  Blood  of  Chrtjl,  in  Peter, 
£iiould  have  any  Reference  to  tlie  Laver  of  Baptifm. 

'Let 


(    73    ) 

*  Let  this  then  be  our  Conclufion,  that  the  Blood  of 

*  Chrift  concurs  in  the  Myftery  of  Baptifm,   by  VVay  of 

*  Efficacy  and  Merit  ;  but  not  as  the  Thing  there  figu- 

*  red,  which  the  Scripture  tells  us  not  to  be  the  Blood  of 
'  Chrift,  but  the  Spirit.' 

According  to  this  learned  Author,  the  Opinion  that 
the  Water  in  Baplifm  fignifies  or  reprefents  *he  Blood  of 
Chrift,  is  Novely  and  has  no  F'oundation  in  Scripture. 

And  that  it  is  not  lawful  to  affign  Significations  to  Sa- 
cramental Types  (of  our  own  Heads)  without  Warrant 
from  the  Scriptures,  Iffc. 

In  Refpecl  of  the  third  Thing,  which  Mr.  F.  fays  is 
reprefented  by  the  Water  in  Biptilm,  viz.  *  The  gracious 

*  Influences  of   the  Holy   Ghoft,    whereby   the  Soul  is 

*  fan^tified.*  'Tis  obfervable,  that  we  find  no  Account 
of  any  baptized  in  the  Apoftles  Times,  but  thofe  who 
were  wrought  upon  by  the  Influences  of  the  Spirit,  or  at 
leaft  profeffed  to  afTent  to  the  Doctrines  of  the  Gofpel, 
fee  Rom.  vi.  3,  4,  5.  Infants  being  incapable  either  to 
receive  the  Spirit  by  the  ftatcd  Miniftry  of  the  Gofpel,  or 
to  profefs  their  Affent  to  the  Dodrines  of  it :  'Tis  mani- 
feft  they  were  not  intended  to  be  the  Subjeifs  of  this  Or- 
dinance.---Let  our  Opponents  form  as  many  Cavils  as 
they  pleafe,  'the  Truth  is,  when  they  adminfter  Baptifm 
to  Infants,  after  all  they  have  faid,  they  do  juft  fet  a  Seal 
to  a  Blank.  :  For  as  Biftiop  T'aylor  *  reprefentsit,    '  This 

*  Way  of  Miniftration  makes  Baptifm  to  be  wholly  an 
'  outward  Duty,    a  Work  of  the  Law,    a  carnal  Ordi- 

*  nance,  it  makes  us  adhere  to  the  Letter  without  Regard 

*  of  the  Spirit,  to  be  fatisfied  with  Shadows,  to  return 
'  to  Bondage,  to  relinquifh  the  Myfterioufnefs,  the  Sub- 

*  ftance  and  Spirituality  of  the  Gofpel.*     Again  :   J  And 

*  therefore,   whoever  will   pertini;cioufly  perfift  in    this 

*  Opinion  of  the- Piedo-baptiJIs,  and  pradlife  it  accord- 
'  ingly,  they  pollute  the  Blood  of  the  everlafting  Tefta- 
'  ment,  they  difhonour  and  make  a  Pageantry  of  the  Sa- 

*  crament,  they  inefieclually  reprefent  a  Sepulture  into 
'  the  Death  of  Chrift,  and   pleafe  themfelves  in  a  Sign 

*  without  EfFe£l:,   making  Baptifm  like  the  Fig  Tree  in 

*  the  Gofpel,  full  of  Leaves,  but  no  Fruit  j  and  they  in- 

vocate 
*  Lib.  of  Prophecy,  Page  327.  J  lb.  Page  330. 


(    74    ) 

*  vocate  the  Hoi"  Glioft  In  vain,  doing-  as  if  one  fhould 

*  call  upon  him  to  iJhiminate  a  Stone    ■■  a  Tree. 

But  it  feems  our  Opponents  are  i-  cloi-ly  attach'd  to 
tht  JewiJ^}  antiquated  Law  of  Ci.camnfv.n,  that  they 
can  in  no  wife  fee  the  Rule  and  Ordef  oi  rhe  Gofpei  in  the 
Cafe  of  Baptilm,  tho'  it  (bines  with  more  than  Oriental 
Brightnefs  throughout  (he  whole  New  Teftament,  that 
he  that  runs,  may  read  who  are  the  proper  Subje^s  of 
this  Holv  Ordinance  }  yet  they  are  ftilj  inclin'd  to  think 
when  Circumcifion  was  inflituted.  Infant  Baptifm  was 
alfo  fome  how  included  in  that  Inftitution,  as  that  above- 
mentioned  anonymous  Author,  expreflyfavs,  f  *  I  am 
'  nowprovingtoyou,  that  the  t/fry/^^,^  Jnftituiion  which 
requires  Circumcifion  to  beadminiflred  to  Infants,  re- 
quires Baptifm  to  be  alfo  adminiftred  to  Infants,  in  that 
each  of  thefe  Ordinances  were  appointed  as  a  Seal  of 
the  very  felf  fame  Covenant/  Jnf.  'Tis  admirable  to 
fee  the  Length  of  fome  Men's  Logici  / 

Thefe  Ordinances  were  appointed  as  Seals  of  the  very 
felf-fame  Covenant,  therefore  they  depend  on  che  very 
fame  Inftitution.'  According  to  his  Princples,  with 
as  much  Truth  he  might  as  well  argue,  Circumcifion  and 
the  Lord's  Supper  are  Seals  of  the  very  fclf  fame  Covenant ; 
therefore  the  very  fame  Inftitution  uhich  requires  Cir- 
cumcifion to  be  adminiftred  to  Infants,  req-nrcs  the 
Lord's  Supper  to  be  alfo  adminiftred  to  Infants,  in  that 
each  of  thefe  Ordinances  (as  our  Opponents  fay)  were  ap- 
pointed as  a  Seal  of  the  very  felf-fame  Covenant  :  This 
latter  is  as  genuine  as  the  former.  But  this  Argument 
from  the  Inftitution  of  Circ.  ncifiun,  if^c.  to  prove  In- 
fants Right  to  the  Supper,  io-  falle;  and  fo  muft  their's 
be,  from  that  Inftitution,  to  prove  their  Right  to  Baptifm. 
Jam  yet  fully  of  the  Mind,  our  Oi>ponents  can  never 
make  it  evident,  that  two  diftiad  Ordinances  in  two 
diftindl  Adminiftrations,  depend  on  one  and  the  very 
fame  Inftitution.  Now  feeing  there  is  no  Inftitution  for 
baptizing  Infants,  as  there  was  .'or  circumcifing  them, 
this  Pradice  ftill  appears  to  be  unwarrantable.  The  Ex- 
preffions  of  the  Worthy  and  Reverend  Mr.  Hutchinfon^ 

arc 

f    Diviat  Right,   Page  so. 


\ 


(    15    ) 
are  pertinent  here.  *     *  I  fay  again,    if  Infant-baptifm 
was  commanded  in  the  Command  for  Circumcifion  of 
Infants,  then  by  Analogy  (for  Contrarioruiriy  contraria 
eft  Ratio)  Infant-baptifm  muft  needs  be  abrogated  and 
remanded  in  the  AbrogHion   and  Remanding  of  Cir- 
cumcifion.    And  though  i  do  not  beheve  that  the  Pre- 
cept to  circumcife  Infanrs,  was  fo  much  as  a  virtual  or 
confequential   Comman-i    to  baptize  them,  yet  it  is  an 
Argument  ad  Hominem  at  leaft  ;  and  I  hope  the  Fes^o- 
baptijis  will  be  very  willing  to  receive  tiie  fame  Mea- 
Jure  they  give,   and  reft  fati.^fied  in  this,  that  the  Coun- 
ter mand  to  circumcife  Infants^  is  a  confequential  and  viv" 
iual  Countennayid  to  baptize  them.     By  all  which  it  ap- 
pears, that  Infants  Church  memberfhip  is  repeal'd,  be- 
caufe  the  fame  Law  that  gave  Being  to  it,  is  repeal'd. 
But  let  us    fee  how  this  Author  exemplifies  this  to  usj 
t  You  hold  your  Lands  (fays  he)  by  Patent  made  to 
your   Grandfather,    in  the  Reign  of  King  James  the 
Second,    and  fealed  with  a  red  Seal ;  now  ftiould  King 
George  call  in  all  the  Patents  granted  in  that  Reign,  to 
receive  a  new  Confirmation,     by  annexing  his  great 
Seal  to  them,  in  white  Wax  ;   would  there  beany  Oc-^ 
cafion  for  a  written  Declaration,    that  this  Seal  confir- 
med  the  Lands   to  you,    and   to  your  Children    and 
Heirs,  when  that  is  exprefsly  contain'd  in  the  very  Bo- 
dy of  the  Original  Patent,    which   is   nothing  altei'd, 
but  has  only  receiv'd  a  new  Confirmation  by  the  Seal 
annexed  to  it  ?'     It   feems  by  all  this  Reafoning,    the 
Cafe  is  fet  in  a  very  familiar  Light  !     I  fuppofe  our  Au- 
thor does  not  intend  that  the  former  red  Seal,    is  ftill  to 
this  Patent,    when  he  talks  of  a  new  Confirmation  by  a 
great  Seal  annexed  to  it,    in  white  Wax  ;    otherwife  he 
muft  hold  Circumcifion  to  be  yet  in  Force.     But  when 
Circumcifion  the  red  Seal  was  broken  off  by  divine  Au- 
thority,   'twas  a  fure  Sign  the  Patent  was  difannuUed  ; 
for  as  the  Seal  was  abolifhed,  fo  was  the  Patent  itfelf. 
Befides  if  the  old  Patent  was  yet  in  Force,    and  nothing 
alter'd,  Females  can't  be  baptized  ;     elfe  there  would  be 
a  confiderable  Alteration  in  the  Body  of  the  original  Pa- 
tent. 

•  Animadverf.  upoa  Mr.  lVbifton\  Book,  p.  *6,    f  Divine  Right,  p.  ai. 


(  76  ) 
tent.  The  Cafe  is  plain  :  If  the  former  Patent  was 
faulty,  and  mull  be  called  in,  and  the  Seal  broken  off. 
It  was  undoubtedly  difannulled  j  and  'tis  as  certain  there 
is  a  Neceflity  of  a  new  Patent,  as  well  as  a  new  Seal  - 
which  is  much  better  exemplified  hy  the  Apoftle  in  Heb. 
VIII.  in  a  Gofpel  Light.  So  when  we  have  followed  our 
Opponents,  with  their  Ignis  Fatuus,  or  Familiar  Light, 
thro'  all  their  Windings  and  Turnings,  we  very  happily 
come  out  much  about  the  fame  Place  ;  that  Infante 
Church-memberfliip  is  long  fmce  at  an  End  ;  that  In- 
fants have  no  Right  to  Baptifm,  from  the  Inftitution  of 
Circumcifion  ;  and  that  Profeffing- believers  are  the  pro- 
per Subjcds  of  this  facred  Ordinance. 

Jgain.     Mr.  F.  labours  to  obviate  an  Obje£lion  of  his 
Opponents,    which  is,    '  If  Children  are  capable   and 

*  ought  to  be  admitted  to  Baptifm,    then  ought  they  alfo 

*  to  be  admitted  to  the  Sacrament  of  the  Supper.'    (Very 

*  right.)     To  which  he  replies  ;    *  There  is  iiot  the  lame 

*  Reafon  for  both,    Self-examination  is  required,  in  or- 
'  der  to  partake  of  the  Lord's  Supper  ;  but  it  is  no  where 

*  required  in  order  to  Baptifm.  Atif.  Repentance  and 
Faith  are  always  required  in  order  to  Baptifm  ;  and  if  he 
thinks  that  Perfovs  may  repent  and  believe,  without 
Self-examination,  truly  'he  has  found  out  fome  new  Kind 
of  Repentance  and  Faith,  which  the  Scripture  knows 
not  of.  The  fame  Method  which  he  ufes  to  prove  In- 
fants Right  to  Baptifm,  any  others  may  ufe  to  prove  their 
'Right  to  the  Supper.  For  it  is  only  telling,  that  all 
chofe  Places  which  fpeak  of  Self-examination  in  order  to 
/partake  of  the  Sacrament  of  the  Supper,  are  addrefs'd  on- 
ly to  grown  Perfons,  and  not  to  Infants  j  then  may  they 
further  urge,  Why  docs  he  advance  fuch  Scriptures 
againil  us,  as  will  prove  no  more  but  that  Perfons  come 
•to  Years  of  Difcretion  fhould  not  partake  of  the  Lord's 
(Supper  without  Self-examination,  this  we  hold  as  firmly 
as  he  ;  but  what  is  this  to  the  Cafe  of  Infants  Commu- 
nion ?  And  what  can  thefe  Places  prove  in  relpedl  of 
Children  ? 

By  all  the  Arguments  that  Mr.  F.  would   refute  the 
Flea  for  Infants  Communion,    by  th6  fame  Arguments 


(    77    ) 

wc  would  refute  his  Plea  for  Tnfants-baptifrrK  Arc  In- 
fants uncap  ibie  of  one  ?  fo  are  they  of  the  other.  Is 
there  no  Command  or  Example  for  the  one  ?  neither  is 
there  for  the  other.  Does  the  Duty  of  Self-examination 
exclude  Infants  from  the  Supper  ?  fo  does  that  of  Re- 
pentance and  Faith  exclude  them  alfo  from  Baptifm. 
Do  the  C^ialifications  foregoing  the  Reception  of  the 
S'jpper,  prove  Believers  to  be""  the  only  Subjcds  of  it  ? 
k>  do  thefe  Qualifications  previous  to  Baptifm,  likewifc 
prove  Belie. 'CIS  to  be  the  only  Subjedls  of  it. 

Neither  docs  it  help  him  to  compare  the  Church  to  a 
Schooly  and  Juggeji  Infants  are  capable  is  be  entred,  tha' 
they  are  not  capable  of  the  mo/i  learned  Exerci/es-'-Unleis 
he  could  make  his  Comparifon  reach  the  Point  in  debate, 
and  ihew^  that  Chrift  teacheth  none  who  are  out  of 
the  Church  ;  which  if  it  were  fo,  then  all  grown  Unbe- 
believers  muft  be  brought  into  Church  by  Baptifm,  with- 
out  any  Inftru<fl:ions  or  Profeflion  of  Faith  at  all  ;  which 
is  contrary  to  Mr.  F's  declared  Opinion,  p.  65.  and  to 
the  Pradicc  of  Chrift  whilft  on  Earth  j  which  was  to 
make  Difciples  firft,  before  they  were  baptized,  John  iv. 
I.  and  alfo  to  the  conftant  and  univerfal  Practice  of  the 
Apoftles  afterwards,  y/^J  ii.  41. 

But  inafmuch  as  Chrift  teacheth  Perfons  by  the  Mini- 
flry  of  hisVVord,  who  are  not  C  hurch-members  ;  and  that 
all  the  Members  in  the  Apoftolic  Churches  (as  far  as  we- 
can  find)  were  taught  before  they  were  admitted  ;  theri 
it  necefTarily  follows,  that  this  Simile  which  Mr.  F.  ufeth, 
does  neither  confirm  nor  illuftrate  the  Point  he  is  upon. 
Seeing  Infants  are  not  born  Church-members,  nor  can 
they  be  admitted  before  teaching,  our  Way  is  clear  to 
affirm,  that  none  but  Proficients  are  to  be  entered  into- 
the  Church,  and  the  loweft  Clafs  therein,  are  fit  Subjeds 
of  the  Lord's  Supper  :  Or  let  Mr.i^  give  us  any  Inftances 
to  the  Contrary  in  Apoftolic  Times ;  but  this  he  can- 
not ;  therefore  our  Argument  will  appear  to  be  founded 
on  the  Word  of  God,  and  our  Pradice.  in  this  Cafe 
according  to  the  beft  Example  :  And  it  ftill  remains,  if 
Infants  are  capable  and  ought  to  be  admitted  to  Baptifm, 
tlien  ought  they  alfo  to  be  admitted  to  the  Lord's  Supper, 

More- 


C    78    ) 

Moreover  f  the  Author  of  the  late  Dialogue  fays  over 
and  over,  '  That  little  Ones  or  Infants  "jo  believe  in 
*  Chrift.'  If  fo,  I  demand  the  Place  of  Scripture  which 
forbids  Church- Members  which  believe  in  Chrift  to  re- 
ceive the  Lord's  Supper,  when  their  Life  is  unftain'd  with 
a<2ual  Sins,  as  in  the  Cafe  of  Infants  ?  Was  there  any 
fuch  Thing  pradifed  by  the  Apoftles  as  lo  debar  Church 
Members,  whom  they  look'd  on  to  be  Believers,  from 
the  Lord's  Table  ?  Surely,  No.  Let  our  Opponunts  a£t 
confiftent  with  their  own  AfTertions,  or  eifc  'tis  high 
Time  for  them  to  drop  them. 

Further,  if  thefe  Men  believe  what  they  themfelves  fay. 
That  Infants  are  Believers  iii  Chriji,  what  need  is  there 
for  them  to  go  about  the  Bujh  to  prove  their  Right  of  Bap- 
tifm  from  Abraham's  Covenant  and  Circumcifion  ?  Why 
don't  they  unanimoufly  aflert,  they  have  a  Right  to  Bap- 
tifm  upon  their  own  perfonal  Faith  ?  And  why  Ihould 
Mr.  F.  tell  us  here  and  there,  that  we  miftake  their  Mean- 
ing, and  that  we  argue  againft  what  they  never  aflert  ? 
When  our  Opponents  do  aflert.  That  Infants  are  Believers 
inChriJ}^  Parents  muft  convey  Faith  to  them,  or  they 
have  it  fome  other  Way  ;  and  why  don't  they  tell  us 
which  Way  Infants  come  by  it  ?  when  the  Apoftle 
makes  Hearing  the  Gofpel  abfolutely  neceflary,  in  order 
to  believe,  Rom.x.  I4,--I7.  Now  we  know  that  Infants 
are  incapable  to  receive  Faith  by  hearing  the  Word.  It 
then  behoves  our  Opponents  to  lead  us  into  this  Mjflery^ 
how  Infants  come  by  their  Faith,  as  well  as  what  kind  of 
Faith  it  is,  if  they  don't  allow  it  to  be  convey'd  from 
their  Parents.  And  what  does  Mr.  F.  make  his  Diftinc- 
tions  for,  of  a  Two- fold  being  in  the  Covenant  \  when  it 
is  affirmed,  That  Infants  are  Believers  in  Chrift.  Will 
he  fay  that  Believers  in  Chrift  are  not  favingly  in  the  Co- 
venant of  Grace,  efpecially  when  that  anonymous  Author 
puts  them  on  a  Par  with  believing  Women,  without  any 
Diftinftion  or  Limitation  *.  And  as  ufelcfs  is  Mr.  Fin- 
ley  %  Obfervation  elfewhere  :    Says  he,  J  *  We  fpeak  not 

*  of  inherent  Holinefs,    or  real  gracious  Habits,    but  of 

*  foederal  Holinefs.*    Will  he  tell  us,  how  fome  can  have 

Faith 

t  DWJnc  Right,  p.  15,  x%,  38,     •  lb,  f  3I,     X  Charit.  Pk»i  p.  4«' 


(  79  ) 
Faith  in  Chriflr,  and  not  have  inherent  Holinefs  ?  Or  have 
the  Principles  and  Habit  of  javing  Faith^  \  and  yet  not 
hzvQ  ^  real  2lx\6  gracious  Habu  of  Faith  }  It  feems  there 
is  feme  M)  ftery  more  than  common,  in  this  Bufinefs  of 
Infant-baptifm  !  When  1  can  believe  Aflertions  diame- 
trically oppofue  to  be  true,  probably  I  may  fall  in  to  be- 
lieve the  jarririg  Aflertions  of  cui  Opponents.  In  the 
mean  while,  it  appears  we  don't  aruue  a;i;ainft  ■what  they 
never  affirm,  but  ftill  fay,  If  Church- Members  and  their 
Seed  are  thus  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  they  fljall  all  be 
faved  •,  tho'  Numbers  of  thofe  believing  Infants,  when 
grown,  to  all  Appearance  live  and  die  mere  Reprobates. 
But  will  our  Opponents  labour  to  extricate  themfelves  out 
of  their  Abfurdities  (for  I  am  perfwaded  there  is  no  Man 
can  reconcile  their  Affertiona)  by  faying,  they  mean  not 
all  the  Infants  of  Church- Members,  but  only  fome  of 
them.  I  yinf.  What  convincing  Evidence  is  there  of 
one  Infant's  Faith  more  than  another's  ?  Let  them  inform 
us  whereby  they  know  it.  If  there  is  Ground  for  chari- 
table Judgment  of  one,  why  not  of  all  ?  when  they  plead 
that  they  are  ^//f  cede  rally  Holy,  aiid  in  Covenant  together 
with  their  believing  Parents.  Which  Side  foever  of  their 
AfTertions  I  turn  up,  it  has  ftill  written  upon  it,  Ineon- 
fijiency  and  Faljhood. 

But  it  is  plain  our  Opponents  *  do  wretchedly  abufe 
(if  not  willingly  wreft)  that  Place  of  Scripture,  Matt. 
xviii.  4,  5,  6.  when  they  interpret  the  Place  to  mean 
Infants  in  Age  ;  for  'tis  here  evident  at  firft  Sight,  that 
Chrift  meant  by  the  little  Ones  which  believe  in  him,  not 
Infants  in  Age,  but  Perfons  in  Years,  who  ftiould  hum- 
ble themfelves  as  that  little  Child.  Men  in  humility, 
are  here  called  little  Ones  which  believe  in  Chrift ;  which 
none  will  deny,  but  thofe  who  are  bent  upon  it,  to  abufe 
Scripture  at  their  Pleafure,  to  countenance  Falfhoods 
urder  a  Cloak  of  abufed  Scriptures,  and  thereby  to  im- 
pofc  their  Errors  upon  the  World,  under  the  Colour  of 
Scripture  Expreifions  :  And  for  a  Proteftant,  a  Scholar, 
a  Miniiler  to  do  fo,  highly  aggravates  the  Guilt  of  fuch 
horrid  Impieties. 

The 
%  Divise  Right,  p,  33,  •  Divtoe  Rifiht,  p.  aft 


(     8o     ) 

The  Affemhly  on  the  PLiCc  fav,  ver.  3,  Except  ye  he 
tonverted.  '  A  kind  of  Speech  taken  from  the  Hebrews.^ 
*■  to  fet  out  Repentance,  which  is  the  altering  of  a  Man's 
'  Courfe  for  the  better,  as  he  that  is  gone  out  of  the  Way, 

*  turns  baek  to  return  into  the  right  Way  again.     Or  it 

*  may  be  more  particularly  meant  here,  of  turning  from 

*  ambitious  Thoughts,    which   then  polTcfled   them,     to 

*  humility  of  Mind.     {Become  as  little  Children]    not  in 

*  Ignorance,  hut  in  Lowlinels  of  Fpiiit,    i  Cor.  xiv.  20. 

*  [Ver.  4.   JVhcfoever  therefore  Jhall  humble  himfelf  as 

*  this   little  Child]    That  is,    fo    humb!eth   himfelf,    as 
'  that  for  humble  Difpofition  he  become  iilce  tliis  Child  ; 

*  for   the  Child,  to   fpeak  properly,    could  not  humble 
'  himfelf.     Whofoever  doth  not  think  highly  of  fiimfelf 

*  no   more  than  this  little  Child  doth.     Humblenefs  of 

*  Mind  is  the  rio;ht  Way  to  Pre-eminence,  ver.  5.    One 

*  Tuch    little  Child.    [One   like  fuch  a  Child,    in   the 

*  Quality  before  mentioned,   Pfal.  cxxxi,,  2.    and  cxix. 
'    141.     Fer.  6,     But  ivhofo  Jhall  offend]     Mark  ix.  42, 

*  Z«^^  xvii.    I,   2.    [one  of  thefe   little  Ones]    (hall,    by 

*  Wrong  or  Contempt  (which  oft  deters  and  turns  Men 

*  afide  from  ProfefHon  of  Piety,  or  pious  Courfes)  oftend 

*  fuch  an  humbled  Soul,  ver.  5.    Men  being  molt  prone 

*  to  deal  fo,   with  Perfons  fo  difpofed.' 

The  Continuers  of  Pool^s  Annotations  on  Matt,  xviii. 
5.    *  Whofo  receivethfuch  a  little  Child, that  is  an  hum- 

*  bleChriftian.     In  the  next  Verfe  it  is  opened,  by  one 
'  that  believeth  in  me, 

Mr.  Cradock,  thus  :  %  *  O^^  Saviour  being  minded  to 

*  cure  this  Pride  and  Ambition    in    his  Difciples,    calls 

*  them  about  him,  and  fitting  down,  preaches  unto  them 
'  the  Do(£trine  of  true  Humility^  declaring  and  fhewing, 

*  that    every    one  that  rightly  defires  true  Honour  an  I 

*  Dignity,  muft  abafc,  and  humble,  and  caft  down  him- 

*  felf  (even  below  others)  in  his  own  Eltimation  and  Be- 

*  haviour,  and  mufl:  be  ferviceable  to  the  Good  of  others, 

*  Mark  ix.  35.    Then  for  the  better  Ill'jftration  of  this 

*  Dodrine,   he  makes  Ufe  of  a  fignificant  Emblem  (as 

*  the  Prophets  of  old  were  wont  to  teach  the  People, 

X  U«Binony  of  Zrang* 


(    St    ) 

fee  Jer.  xxvii.   2.)  (hewing  them  a  h'ttle  Child,  and  ta- 
Jcing  him  into  his  Arms,  and  fetting  before  them  there- 
m  an  Example  of  Humility  and  Meeknefs,  which  they 
ought  to  imitate  j    plainly  telling  them,  that  the  Way 
to   be   great  in  his  Kingdom,    is  to  be  humble  ;    and 
therefore,  except  they  be  converted,  that  is,  repent  of 
this   their   Pride  and   Ambition,    and  become  as  httle 
Children  m  Humility  of  Mind,  and  iincere  Innocency, 
they  can  neither  be  Members  of  his  Kingdom  of  Grac6 
here,     nor    fliall    enter  into  his  Kingdom   of   Glbrv 
hereafter  '     I    need   not  ftand  to  fay  any  Thing  more 
on    this  Head,  the   Matter  being    fo  clear,    even   felf- 
evident,    that  Chrifl  meant  not  Infants  in  Age  by  thefe 
ExprefTions,    but    Men  of  humble  Difpofitions,  t>V.     I 
fliall  proceed  to  obferve  a  whole  Heap  of  abfurd  AfTerti- 
ons  m  that  Dialogue  :     t    '  You  require     (fays  the  Au- 
^  thor)  exprefs  Nevv-Teftament  Proof,   that  Infants  are  to 
be  baptized  j  and  I  require  of  you  exprefs  New-teflament 
Proof  that   Women  fhould  partake  of  the  Lord's  Sup- 
per  :     Prove  the  latter  by  what   Arguments  you  pleafe. 
and  1  will  prove  the  fofmer  by  the  fame.' 
L8t   us    try    then  how  the  Matter  will  turn  out  •    I 
Jnf.  m  the  Words  of  the  Rev.  Mr.  Rees^    *    «  i    As  to 
'  "Jf  omens  coming  to    the  Lord's  Table,    there   are  no 

•  Qualdications    required   of  them,    but  what  are  very 

•  conhftent  with  their  State  ;  whereas  in  Point  of  Bap- 
tifm,  there  are  Faith  and  Repentance  required  every 
where  j  the  want  of  which  altogether  difqualifies  In- 
fants,  and  excludes  them  this  Ordinance,  if  we  keetf 
to  the  Rules  of  the  Gofpel.     2.    To  put  the  Matter  out 

^  of  Doubt  we  have  a  clear  Accouirt  of  mmens  having: 
.  comniun  d  at  breaking  of  Bread  with  the  Church  at 
^  Jerujalem.  Aas  i.  13,  14.  And  when  they  were  come 
^  tn,  they  went  up  into  an  upper  Room,  where  abode  both 
c  ,%  """^  '-^T"'  ^""^  •^'^•'"»  ^"^  Andrew,  Philip, 
,  0  Jj!T'  ^'^^^^'^'^'"'^^  ^"d  Matthew,  James  the 
,  ^l"°ffpb^^s,  and  Simon  Zealotes,  and  Judas  the  Bro> 
ther  of  James.      Theje  all  continued  with  one  Jecord  in 

'^^^mI  r^fJT'°"^  -^^th  the  mmen,  and  Mart 
the  Mothiv  of  Jefm,    andmth  his  Brethren:     v.  15! 

t    Pag<3§/        »    Ir-f«htI^pUftnn?/fnft{t.jt:woirch«C    Page  9*, 


r  82  ) 

*  —the  Nzmber  of  the  Names  together  were  about  an  Hun- 

*  dred  and  tiuenty.     Chap,    ii,    42.    jirid   thry  continued 

*  JieHfajily  It  the  /ipojllei  Do^rine  and  Fcllowjhip^  and  in 

*  brec.hing  of  Bread  and  in  Prayers,     v.  44.   Jnd  all  that 

*  beltevtd  wer?  together^--  v.  46.  And  t-^cy  continuing  daily 

*  -with  one  A: cord  in  the  Temple^   <7«.-/ breaking  Bread /rom 

*  Houfe  to  i-hufe.,    v.  47.   --y^;/<5^  the    Lord   aided    to   the 

*  Church  daily  fuch  asjhould be  favcd.    Now  it"  Mr.  IV.  can 

*  oroduce  but  a  Qi^iai  tcr-part  of  fuch  a  Scripture  Hiftory 

*  of  Infants  being  bapti-z.ed^  T  promife  freely  to   be  of  his 

*  Opinion.'  And  To  fay  I  to  th^t  anonymous  Gentleman. 
But  fays  our  Author,  *  Are  Women  in  Covenant?  fo 
*■  are  the  Infants  of  believing  Parents.'  This  AfTertiori 
is  falfe.  For  "Wumen  are  m  Covenant  by  true  Faith, 
wrought  of  the  HolyGhoA  in  their  Snuls,  by  hearing  the 
Gofpel,  Aas  xvii.  4,  12.  compare  John  iii.  36.  Eph.  iii. 
17.  'but  Infants  are  not  fo.      '  Are    Women   Behevers  ? 

*  fo  are  fome  Infants.'  This  is  alfo  falfe,  as  I  have 
Ihewn  :  Neither  can  this  Author  (whoever  he  is)  make 
good  the  Contrary.--*  Are  Women  Difciples  of  Chrift  ? 
"  fo  are  fome  infants.'  Anf.  Tis  not  eafy  to  find  any 
Word  too  hard  to  call  this  AfTertion  by,  feeing  it  is  di- 
ametrically oppofite  to  the  Sayings  of  Chrift  ;  Luke  xiv^ 
27.  -..  JVhofoever  doth  not  bear  his  Crofs,  and  come  after  me^ 
CANNOT  be  myDifciple  j  and  to  all  the  Charadlers  given 
in  Scripture  of  his  Difcioles.     '  Are  Women  part  of  the 

*  Nations  to  whom  tiie  Mmifters  of  the  Gofpel  are  com- 

*  mifTion'd  and  fent  ?  fo  are  Infants,'  What  pretty  Bu- 
fmefs  this  Gentleman  would  make  of  it^  to  go  and  preach 
to  a  Houfe- full  of  Intents  !  1  believe  he  would  foon  be 
convinced,  that  a  Companv  of  good  Nurfes  would  do- 
more  Good  by  far  amongft  them,  than  he  could  do  with 
all  his  Divinity- LeSiures.  Truly  'tis  not  a  little  furpri- 
zing,  that  we  fhould  be  enteitain'd  by  our  Opponents 
(who  would  ht  deemed  Men  of  Senfe  and  (.earning)  with 
fuch  bulkv  Heaps  of  perfect  Nonfenfe.  Can  any  one  in 
bis  Wits  imagine,  that  Chrift  commifTion'd  and  fent  his 
Apoftles  to  do  what  was  utterly  impoifible,  if/z.  to  teach 
Infants  the  Doctrines  of  his  Gofpel  ?  and  none  were  to 
be  baptized  according  to  the  Older  of  the  Commiffion, 

but 


(    S3    ) 

but  thofe  who  were  firft  taught.  *  Have  Women  A 
Claim  to  have  the  Covenant  feai'd  to  them  ?  fo  have 
*  the  Infants  of  believing  Parents  likewife.'  Jnf,  Wo- 
men were  baptized,  according  to  the  Order  of  the  Gof- 
pel,  J<^s  viii.  12.  but  Beh"evers  Infants  are  neither  in  the 
Covenant,  as  our  Opponents  alledge,  nor  have  any 
Right  to  Baptifm  ;  as  I  have  already  (hewn. 

When  this  Author's  Hand  was  in,    he  might  with  e- 
ijual  Truth  have  faid,  Are  Women  to  partake  of  the  Sa- 
crament of  the  Supper  ?     fo  are  fome  Infants.     He  fur- 
ther fays,    *  I  have  alfo  (hewn  you,    that  Lydia  and  het 
*  Houfhold,    that    the  Jaylor  and  all  his,    and  that  the 
Houfhold  of  Suphanus  were  all  baptized  :  And  there  i^ 
no  Room  to  Doubt,  but  that  in  thefe  Families  (at  leaft 
in  fome  of  them;    there  were  fuch  Children,  as  were 
not  capable  perfonally  and  explicitely  to  covenant  for 
themfelves,'—  If  I  may  ufe  his   Words,    there  is  no 
Room  to  doubt,  but  he  abufes  thefe  Paffages,  to  counte- 
nance his  Scripturelefs   Opinion   and  Pradice.     As  to 
Lydia,    (he  was  a  Merchant  Woman,  and  certainly  muft 
have  Help  about  her,  to  carry  on  that  fatiguing  Bufmefs  j 
but  there  is  not  the  leaft  Account  that  (he  was  married, 
and  had  Children,  Jdfs  xvi.  14.-    The  Jaylor  believed 
in  God  with  ail  bis  Houfe,  Ads  xvi.  34.   TheHoufe  «/'Ste- 
phanus  was  the  fir/i  Fruits  of  Achzh^  1  Cor.  xvi.  15.  i.  e.' 
he  and  his  Family  were  fome  of  the  firft  that  were  con- 
verted  by   the  Miniftry  of  the  Gofpel  in  that  Country. 
Upon  the  whole,    there  does  not  appear  the  leaft  Ground 
from  Scripture  for  Infant-baptifm,    by  any  Thing  as  yet 
produced  or  urged  by  this  anonymous  Author,  more  thart 
others.     But  why  tarry  I  to  remark  on  fuch  Things  as 
are  in  themfelves  evidently  falfe  ?    I  return,  and  Come  to 
Mr.  Finley\  5th,    and  laft  Aflertion,  which  is,    '  That 
•  Baptifm  fucceeds  in  the  Reomi  of  Circumcifioi).     Thii 
is  evident  from  Col.  ii.  1 1.  12.    In  whom  alfo  ye  are  tir- 
cumcifed  with  the  Circumcifion  made  without  Hands^    iii 
<■  putting  off  the  Body  of  the  Sins  oftheFleJh^  by  the  Circumci- 
fion  of  Chriji :  Buried  with  him  in  Baptifm,  £fff.'  Having 
already    examin'd    Mr.   F's    foregoing  AiTertions,    and 
«iewn  the  Places  of  Scripture  he  advances  for  Infants 

F  ?,  JRight 


C  ^4  ) 
I^ght  to  Bapflfm,  don't  conclude  for  him,  there  is  tHc 
Jefs  Need  to  dwell  long  upon  this  laft  Affertion  ;  wherein 
he  labours  to  {hew  that  Baptiiin  is  come  in  the  Room  of 
Circumcifion^  and  every  Way  anfwers  the  Defign  aod 
Ufe  of  it-- -Then  funis  up  his  Matter  thus,     '  Sccng  the 

*  Infants  of  Ciuirch- members,     were  citcumcifed,    there 

*  cannot  be  a  clearer  Confequence,  than  they  {hould  a!fo 

*  be  baptized,'  Reply.  Jult  as  if  there  was  no  Regard 
tobehad  unto  the  different  Difpenfations,  oruntotheOrdcr 
and  Laws  of  God,  refpcdmg  each  of  thefe  Ordinances  ; 
but  of  his  own  Head,  with'jut  any  Warrant  from  Chrift, 
concludes  that  Infants  are  to  be  baptized.  Which  Confe- 
quence  is  to  be  rejedlcd,  becaufe  it  is  not  confiimed  witli 
**  Thus  faith  the  Lord/'  But  let  us  confider  the 
GrourKls  and  Reafons  of  his  Conclufion,  viz.  That 
Baprifm  is  come  in  the  Room  of  Circumcillon,  and  ferves 
for  the  fame  Ends,  and  one  P.eafon  (if  not  the  chief) 
which  Mr.  F.  oiFcis  to  confirm  it,  is  to  this  Purpofe,  Wz. 

*  That  the  Apoftle  defigns  to  {hew  that  Baptifm  anfwers 

*  to  Gircumcifion,     and  fucceeds  it  ;    or  elfe,    that  his 

*  Argument  does  not  refute  the  Judai%ing  Teachers  : 

*  To" fay  the  laft  would  be    blafphemous,    therefore   the 

*  former  is  true.'  If  the  Cafe  was  fo,  how  fhuuld  tht 
i\po{tie  refute  the  Judaizing  Teachers,  in  their  Plea 
for  the  Blndingnefs  of  other  Mofaic  Ceremonies,  under 
the  New-Te{tament  Difpenfation,  without  {liewing  that 
there  was  feme  Ordinance  or  Ceremony,  anfwenng  to 
each  of  them,  and  to  fijccced  them,  inorder  to  quell  the 
Tumults  of  thofe  turbulent  Men  ?  And  confequently 
snake  the  new  Difpenfation  as  cumberfome  as  the  Old. 
Does  Mr.  /^  think  that  thofe  Legal  Teachers  were  not  as 
clofely  attach'd  to  other  Mojalc  Ceremonies,  as  they 
were  (or  could  be)  to  Circumcifion  ?  A3i  xxi.  21,  28. 
What  kind  of  Satisfadion  would  it  be  to  them,  or  Re- 
futation of  their  Plea,  to  tell  them  Baptifm  fucceeds  Cir- 
cumcifion ;  but  other  Mofaic  Ceremonies  are  aboli{lied, 
and  ChriHians  compleat  in  Chrift  without  them,  or  any 
coming  in  their  Room  to  anfwer  them  ?  How  readily 
(according  to  Mr.  F.)  might  they  return,  and  fay  ihat^ 
tilt   Church  was  in  a  worfe- Condition  than  before,    and  hrr 

Fii" 


(    85    ) 

Prhiledges  abridged,  if  fhe  has  no  Ordinances  to  anfwcr 
to  thefe  Offerings,  Sacrifices,  Purifications,  d5V.  once  ia 
ufe.  And  if  only  fonie  *  few  comparatively,  of  thofe 
baptized,  were  to  partake  of  the  Sacrament  of  the  Sup- 
per ;  whereas  formerly  all  the  Nation  of  rhe  Jews^  who 
were  circumcifed,  were  to  eat  of  the  Paflbver,  In  a 
Word,  if  the  Apoftle  intended  what  our  Opponents  urge 
fiom  this  Place,  inftead  of  refuting  the  Judaizing 
Teachers,  he  would  only  have  form'd  an  Argument, 
to  be  expos'd  to  more  Perplexities  and  Intricacies.  But 
let  it  be  obferved,  it  was  the  Apoftle's  iVIethod,  and  a 
fufficient  Refutation  to  the  Pleas  of  thofe  Judaizing 
Teachers,  to  open  unto  them  that  Chrift  the  "Subftance 
beifjg  come,  there  was  no  more  any  Uk  for  thofe  Cere- 
monies, Offerings,  Types,  and  amongfi:  the  reft  Cir- 
cumcifion  itfelf  ;  for  Believers  are  comploat  in  Ch rift 
without  them,  as  the  Apoftle  teftifies,  Ct?/,  ii.  lo.  More- 
over 'tis  manifeft  the  Apoftk  means  by  (Circumcifion  of 
Chrift)  the  Renovation  of  the  Soul,  Spiritual  Operation 
on  the  Heart,  effecaed  by  the  Power  of  che  Holy  Ghoft, 
in  mortifying  the  Body  of  Sin,  and  implanting  in  the 
Soul,  a  Principle  of  Divine  Life---Said  therefore  to  be 
done  without  Hands,  in  Oppofition  to  Circumcifion  in  the. 
Flejh  done  with  Hands.  And  not  as  Mr.  F.  aflerts,  that 
Baptifm  is  here  called  the  Circumcifion  of  Chrift  :  For  if 
fo,  then  it  would  follow,  that  Baptifm  is  abfolutely  ne- 
c^flary  to  Salvation  ;  for  io  is  the  Circumcifion  here 
mentioned. 

2.  That  Baptifm  takes  away  Sins  ;  or  at  leaft,  that 
there  is  fome  Virtue  in  it,  co-operating  wiih  the  Grace 
of  the  Spirit,  in  putting  off  the  Body  of  ^in.—  Which 
Aflertions  are  confiderably  too  big  for  Diffenters  to 
fwallow,  let  who  will  befides  venture  upon  them. 
Therefore  what  Mr.  F.  fays  here,  is  falfe.  Neither  will 
it  help  him  to  fay,  that  the  Thing  fignified,  is  here  cal- 
led by  the  Name  of  the  Sign  ;  for  that  would  prove  that 
the  Perfons  to  be  baptized,  were  only  fuch  according  to 
the  Nature,  Intent,  and  Defign  of  this  Ordinance  ;  who 

f  3  ha4 

*   '•  e.  Upon  a  Svpf  Qfitioa  tbat  Iisfaats  were  to  be  b»ptiMd,  a  our  0§^ 
pSAents  urgs. 


(    86    ) 

jhad  this  Work  of  Grace  wrought  on  their  Hearts  ;  and 
fo  adling  Faith  in  Chrift  in  the  Reception  of  this  Sign, 
both  in  dying  to  Sin,  and  rifing  to  Newriefs  of  Life  (re- 
piefented  by  their  Burial  in  the  Water,  and  rifing  out  of 
jt)  at  the  Adminiftration  of  Baptifm,  which  Infants  are 
incapable  of  j  therefore  not  the  Subje£ls  of  thisOidinance  : 
If  he  means  thus,  hisAflertion,  that  Baptifm  comes  in  thg 
Room  of  Circumcifion,  will  do  him  no  Service  in  the 
Cafe  ;  nor  hurt  the  Truth  which  we  profefs  to  maintain, 
that  thofe  who  have  the  Body  of  Sin  put  off,  are  the  pro- 
per Subjects  of  Baptifm. 

But  againft  his  Clear  Confequence  (as  he  calls  it)  I 
"would  further  argue,  If  Baptifm  fucceeds  Circumcifion  in 
the  Manner  our  Opponents  urge,  'tis  ftrange  that  Paul 
and  Barnabas  in  their  Dillention  and  Difputation  with 
the  Judaizing  Teachers  at  Antioch  (ASis  15  J  who  fo  ve- 
hemently urg'd  the  Neceffity  of  Circumcifion,  did  not 
once  think  of  this  ready  and  powerful  Way  to  refute 
them,  by  faying  Circumcifion  is  abolifhed  ;  but  Baptifni 
is  come  in  the  Room  of  it,  and  anfwers  the  fame  Ends. 
And  when  Paul  and  Barnabas^  with  others,  came  up  to 
'Jerujalem  about  this  Qiieftion,  'tis  flill  ftrange,  when 
they  and  the  Apoftles  and  Elders  met  together,  to  confi- 
der  of  this  Matter,  that  in  all  their  Difcourfing  about  the 
Qiieftion,  they  never  once  thought  on  fuch  a  ready  Way 
to  refute  the  'Judai%ing  Teachers,  as  our  Opponents 
prefcribc.  Now  if  there  had  been  fuch  a  Thing  as 
jBaptifm  to  fucceed  Circumcifion,  and  Infants  to  be  bap- 
tized, How  can  anv  One  imagine  that  this  truly  honoura- 
ble and  wife  Afiembly,  fliould  not  have  thought  of  it, 
and  immediately  fallen  upon  it,  as  the  ready  Way  to  re- 
fute tWeir  Opponents  ;  efpecially  when  there  was  fuch  a  fair 
Opportunity  prefenting  itfelf  ;  For  the  Occafion  would 
have  led  them  directly  upon  it,  had  there  been  fuch  a 
Thing  then  known  ;  and  we  (liould  have  heard  fome- 
thing  of  it,  in  their  Conclufions  fent  to  the  Churches 
perplex'd  with  thofe  'Judai'z.ing  Teachers.  Now,  I  fay, 
can  any  Reafon  be  thought  of,  why  the  Apoftles  and  El- 
ders made  no  mention  of  any  fuch  Thing  as  our  Oppo- 
sients  urge,  neither  in  their  Debates  '\\\  this  Council,  nor^ 


(    87    ) 
in  their  Letters  fent  to  the  Churches,  but  or^ly  ttus    Th^ 
d.ey  received  no  fuch   Doanne  from  Chr.ft,  and  there- 
fore\ranfeitted  no  fuch   Cujlom   to  be^^ferved  by  the 
Churches  of  Chnft  ?     And  how  any  Man  can  thmk  o 
therwife,  and  not  reflea  great  Impiudence  and  Unfa.th- 
fu  neTs  upon  the  Anofties  (if  the  Caf.  be  ..  our  Op.oaents 
Z)    I   can't   imagine.     Neither  is  there  any  colour  of 
Reafon    to  fupport  the  Conf.quence   of   our  Antagon.fts 
^orn  thirXext      that  P.«/ here  alTerts  Bapt.(m  to  com« 
-in  the  Room  of  Cireumcifion,    and  that  Infants  are  to  be 
baptized,    when  he  inmfelf  was  prefenr  in  tnat  Council, 
and   in  the  Refult  of  their  whole  Difccurle  there  was  no 
Lch  Thing  concluded.     The  Cafe  depends  thus,    Whe- 
Iher  is  it  f^feft  to  ceave  to  Mr.  Fs  C-^-iej-ce      That 
Infants  are  to  be  baptized  ;   or  to  tnat  H^iy  ^iTembly 
which  concluded  no  fuch  Thing  ?    let  the  Reader  judge.- 
And  here  I  have  an  Opportunity  to  prefent  Mr.  t. 
with  a  much  clearer  Confequence  tlian  his  o^^'tt  ;,   name- 
ly. That  Infants  are  not  to  oe  baptized,  oecaule  ti^-s  wife 
AfTemblv  mcntion'd  nor  decreed  no  lucl.  I  hiPg.     (JNei- 
ther   indeed   have   we  any  Inftances  of  it  m  ^^^^ 
of  God)     The  World  alfo  may  be  pieasd  to  obferve  the 
Weaknefs  and  Falfity  of  Mr.  F\  Rcafonings,^  tnat  .h^ 
7«^^/z;«F  Teachers  could  not  he  refuted,    unleis  Bapt.fni 
anfwers  to  Circumcifion,   and  fucceeds  it,  y^hen  you  fee 
this  Affembly  refuted  them   without  mentioning  or  al- 
ferting  any  fuch  Thing  ;  or  eife  the  J^'f^^f'^S  Tj^^^ers 
were  not  refuted.     To  fay  the  laji  would  be   blafpbemous, 
4here fore  the  former  is  true. 

There  is  nothing  more  that  ofFers  itfelf  on  this  Head, 
unlefs  I  fhould  juft  obferve,  that  Infants  are  no  Ways  ca- 
pable Subiecls  of  Bapt.fm,  as  thev  were  of  Circumciiion  ; 
becaufe  that  left  a  Sign  in  the  Flefh,  but  Baptifm  does 
not  :  Hearing  the  Gofpel,  Faith,  and  Repentance,  are 
always  required  in  order  to  Baptifm  ;  ^^A^^^  ^"^  f'/^^fj'^^ 
Circumcifion  :  In  that  there  was  no  Word  added  to  the 
Sisn,  but  in  Baptifm  the  Word  is  an  effential  Part  of  the 
Sacrament;  'tis  therefore  neceffary  that  the  Perfons 
baptized,  fliould  in  receiving,  this  Sacrament,  exercile 
Faith  in  God  the  Father,  as  their  Father,   m  the  Soiws 

^   4 


(  88  ) 
their  Redeemer,  and  in  the  Holy  Ghoff,  as  their  Sanfti- 
fier  ;  and  let  it  be  always  remember'd,  that  there  was 
God's  Command  for  Infants  Circumcifion,  but  there  is 
none  for  Infants  Baptifm.  Hence  Infants  are  every  Way 
incapable  of  this  Holy  Ordinance, 

Now  let  us  follow  Mr.  F.  towards  his  Conclufion  ; 
but  in  his  Way  he  meets  with  a  Set  of  Objeaions,  in 
which  (he  fays)  his  Antagonijis  chiefly  triumph  :  And  very 
good  Reafon  for  it ;  blefled  be  the  King  of  Zion,  that  he 
lias  given  U5  Caufe  to  triumph  in  the  Clearnafs  and  Evi- 
dence of  his  Will,  notwithftanding  the  violent  Aflaults 
tnade  to  darken  his  Counfel,  and  wreft  his  Word. 

The  Objeaions  which  (he  fays)  muft  not  be  whollf 
paired  over,  are    "  That  we  find   Faith  and    Repentance 

*  always  required  in  Order  to  Baptijm  ;  and  thofe  who 
were  admitted  to  the  Ordinance,  were  oblig'd  to  pror 
fefs  the  fame,  and  confefs  their  Sins.   So  in  Matt,  iii.6. 

*  They  were  baptized  of  him  ;« Jordan,  confrffmg  their  Sins. 

*  Matt,   xxviii.    19.     Teaching   is   fet    before    Baptizing. 
^  Mark.  xvi.  1 6.     He  that  believeth,  and  is  baptized^  jhall 

*  be  faved.  J£is  x/i.  15,  33,  34.  Lydia  and  the  Jay- 
lor  were  baptized  upon  bdieving  and  profefling  their 
Faith.     Ji}s   ii.   38.     Peter    requir'd    Repentance   of 

*  his  Hearers    in   Order  to   Baptifm.       JSfs    viii.    37. 

*  Philip  would  not  baptize  the  Eunuch  until  he  profeiled 
his  Faith.'     In   Anfwer  to    which,     I  obferve  that  our 

^  Opponents  themfelves  mull  own,  i.  That  thefe Scrip- 
tures which  they  fo  much  urge,  are  add  refled  only  to  grown 
Perfons,  and  not  to  Infants,  who  are  incapable  of 
'  being  taught  by  Preaqhing.'  To  which  I  reply  :  This 
we  readily  own,  and  therefore  fay,  if  according  to  the 
Scripture,  Faith  and  Repentance  are  always  required  in 
order  to  Baptifm,  then  what  Sort  of  Baptifm  is  thatj 
v^hich  requires  no  Faith  and  Repentance  to  go  before 
Jt.?  Why  furely  not  a  Scriptural  One.  What 
is  it  that  blinds  thefe  iMen's  Eyes,  that  they  (hould  think 
Infant -baptifm  to  be  right  ?  when  they  themfelves  can't 
find  any  fuch  kind  of  Baptifm  in  the  whole  VVord  of 
God.  People  are  really  to  be  pitied,  and  lamented  over, 
who  make  all  this  Stir  about  a  Ceremony,  after  a  Man.- 

ner 


(    89    ) 
ner  confefs'd  by  themfelves  to  be  without  Foundation  in 

Scripture, 

Are  our  pitiful  Opponents  bent  upon  it,  and  fully  re- 
folved  to  follow  the  Tradition  of  their  Fathers  (which 
muft  be  own'd  on  all  Hands  to  be  Scripturelefs)  in  diredi 
Oppofition  to  the  Laws  and  Order  of  the  King  o{  Zion  ? 

May  the  Lord  incline  their  Hearts  to  turn  from  their 
awful  Wanderings  to  his  facred  Truth  ;  then  fliould  we 
take  fweet  Counfel  together,  and  walk  to  the  Houie  of 
God  in  Company. 

2.  If  all  thefe  Scriptures  are  addrefled  only  to  grown 
Perfons,  then  the  Comniiflion  refers  to  them  alfo,  wherein 
ieoching  is  fet  before  baptising  ;  for  this  is  one  of  the  Pla- 
ces Mr.  F.  cites.  Hence,  if  Infants  are  incapable  of  be- 
ing taught  by  Preaching,  as  Mr.  F,  fays  they  be,  there  is 
no  Warrant  then  to  baptize  them,  unlefs  Mr.  F.  could 
produce  another  Commiffion  than  that  which  Chriff  gave 
to  his  Difciplesand  their  SuccefTors  ;  which  we  know  he 
cannot  ;  There  is  therefore  no  Authority  from  Chrift  to 
baptize  Infants  j  becaufe  in  the  CommiiTion,  Teaching  is 
fet  before  Baptizing  j  and  Mr.  F.  pleads  for  it  (and  would 
have  us  own  it  too)  that  all  thefe  Places  refer  to  grown 
Perfons  and  not  to  Infants.  Mr.  F.  would  do  well  to 
confider,  according  to  his  own  Way  of  Reafoning,  that 
all  the  Infants  he  ever  has  baptized,  and  ever  fhail,  he 
does  it  without  any  Authority  from  Chrift  ;  and  let  hirn 
confider  what  dreadful  Prefumption  be  is  guilty  of  in  fo 
doing  ;  and  alfo  of  his  taking  the  Name  of  the  blefled 
Trinity  fo  much  in  vain  ! 

'  idly    ffays  he)  That   they  were  Addreffes   to    fuch 

*  grown  Perfons  as  were  not  Chriftian«  before,  but  either 

*  "Jews  or  Pagans' 

Reply.  What  he  would  gain  by  this  Part  of  his  An- 
fwer,  I  can't  readily  imagine.  That  Place,  Matt.  iii.  3. 
—  contains  an  Addrefs  of  John  the  Baptift  to  the  Jeivs^ 
the  Pharifees^  and  SadduceeSy  who  were  then  in  Abra- 
ham's Covenant,  and  had  a  Right  to  have  their  Children 
circumcifed,  becaufe  this  Ceremony  was  not  then  abro- 
gated :  And  if  Jbrahanis  Covenant  was  a  pure  Cove- 
nant of  Grace,  in  the  Manner  our  Opponent?  plead  for. 


It 


(     90    ) 

it  does  not  found  very  well,  to  fay  that  grown  wicked 
Perfons,  as  thofe  Jews  were,  who  (Mr.  F.  favs)  were  no 
Chriftians,  were  yet  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace.  Truly 
I  don't  underftand  fuch  a  Being  in  the  Covenant  of  Graces 
and  to  aflert  fuch  Notions,  ferves  for  nothing  elfe  but  to 
faften  People  in  deftrudllve  Delufions. 

'  3^6'»  (fays  he)  They  muft  own,   there  is  a  wide  Dif- 

*  ference  between  gathering  and  forming  a  Church  from 

*  amongft  thofe  who  are  ignorant  of  Chriftianity,  and  a 
'  Church  already  gathered,  and  form'd,   and  inftrudted  i 

*  for  in  profelyting  Jews  or  Pagans  to  Chriftianity,  they 
'  muft  of  Neceftity  be  taught  before  they  can  either  pro- 

*  fefs  their  Faith  in  the  DocHirines  of  it,    or  be  admitted 

*  to  Baptifm  :  But  it  will  not  follow  that  none  can  be  ad- 
*■  mitted  to  Baptifm  without  teaching  in  a  Church  already 

*  conftituted.*  Anf.  There  is  no  Neceffity  appearing, 
that  we  muft  own  all  that  is  here  fuggefted  ;  tho'  we 
ihould  and  do  grant  there  is  a  Dift'erence  between  gather- 
ing a  Church,  and  a  Church  already  gathered  and  confti- 
tuted. The  Matter  may  be  fet  in  a  clear  Light  by  re- 
folving  a  Query  or  two. 

^er.  I.  What  is  it  to  gather  a  Church  ?  Anf.  'Tis  to 
preach  the  Gofpel  for  the  Inftrudlion  of  the  Ignorant  in 
the  Do(Slrines  of  Grace  and  Salvation,  whereby  fuch  are 
prepared  to  be  fit  Matter  of  a  Gofpel  Vifible  Church, 
j£fs  xxvi.  17,  18.    A^s  viii.  5,  6,  12. 

^er.  2.  What  is  a  Church  gathered,  form'd,  and 
conltituted  ?  Anf.  A  Church  gathered,  form'd,  and 
conftituted,  is  a  feleft  Number  of  baptized  Believers,  in- 
corporated together,  profefting  to  be  united  to  Chrift  by 
his  Spirit,  and  to  walk  together  by  mutual  Confent,  in 
Subje6lion  to  Chrift  their  Head,  in  the  Fellowfhip  and 
Communion  of  all  the  Ordinances  of  the  Gofpel.  Acfs 
ii.  41.  Eph.  iv.  15,  16.  I  Cor.  vi.  i-j.  Chap,  i,  9.  Eph. 
i.  19,  20.  A^s  ix.  31.  2  Cor.  xiii.  11.  Eph,  v-  24.  A^s 
ii.  42,  46. 

How  then  can  Mr.  F.  thruft  in  his  Aflertion,  that  it 
"will  not  follow,  none  can  be  admitted  to  Baptifm,  with- 
out Teaching  in  a  Church  already  conftituted  ?  when  he 
can't  make  appear  that  Infants  are  Church-members, 

withou; 


(    91     ) 

without  contradiaing  the  exprefs  Teftimony  of  Scripture 
concerning  the  New  Teftament  Church,  both  in  Refpea 
of  its  Matter  and  Form  :  and  alfo  involve  his  Argument 
in  the  geateft  Abfurdiiies  and  Inconfiftencies,  as  I  have 
already  fhewn.  , 

Infants  cannot  be  baptized  upon  Profeflion  of  their 
Faith  ;  they  cannot  be  any  Part  of  a  conftituted  Church, 
not  being  inft.M-'^ted  ;  they  can't  profefs  Union  with 
Chrift,  nor  Subjedion  to  him  ;  neither  are  they  capable 
to  walk  together  with  others  in  the  FcUowfhip  of  the 
Gofpel. 

Does  our  Author  think  that  the  Infants  of  Church 
Members  are  not  as  ignorant  of  Chriftianity,  as  he  car> 
fuppofe  either  Jews  or  Pagans  to  be  ?  Whatever  he 
thinks  or  fays,  there  is  fufHcient  Evidence  that  the  In- 
fants of  Church-members  are  as  ignorant  of  the  Princi- 
ples of  Chriflianity,  and  their  Natures  as  perverfe  as  any 
others  in  the  World,  and  therefore  need  (as  they  grow  up) 
very  careful  and  diligent  Inftru(5lions  in  the  Dodrines  pf 
it,  before  there  can  be  any  Pretence  for  their  Right  to 
Baptifm,  or  any  tolerable  Conformity  to  the  Order  given 
by  Chrift,  in  his  unvariable  Commiffion  :  And  to  deny 
this,  is  to  deviate  from  the  plain  Rule  and  Order  of  the 
Gofpel. 

"  ^thly.  (fays  he)    That  there  is  a  DifFerence  between 

*  the  firfllnflitution  of  an  Ordinance,  and  the  continued 

*  Adminiftration  of  it  afterwards  ;  for  Parents  or  grown 

*  Perfons  muft  firft  be  the  Subjefls  of  a  new  Inftitution, 
'  and   not  Infants  :     But  it  will  not  follow,  becaufe  Pa- 

*  rents  muft  firft  be  the  Subjeds,  therefore  Children  muft 

*  not  afterwards  be  admitted  at  all  :  Yea  fuch  a  Confe- 
'  quence  is  quite  Ridiculous  !*  Anf.  What  is  Ridiculous? 
to  follow  the  firft  Inftitution  of  an  Ordinance,  or  leave 
that,  and  follow  Men's  Adminiftration  of  it  afterwards, 
different  from  the  firft  Inftitution  ?  Let  Mr.  F.  judge 
which  deferves  moft  to  bear  that  odious  Title,  Ridicukus  \ 
How  impertinent  is  the  Inftitution  of  Circumcifion  men- 
tioned hare  !  Does  he  think  this  a  parallel  Cafe  with 
what  he  is  upon  ?  Was  not  the  Circumcifion  of  Infants 
exprefly  commanded  at  the  firit  Inftitution  of  that  Ordi- 

■  JiancCj 


(     92     ) 

Wl'  ^'"•/"n -J^'o  ''n'^-  ■  ^"'^  ^^'''^^^'  thereunto, 
/a^aham  and  all  his  Houfhold  were  circumcifed  the  fclf 
fame  Da^  according  to  God's  Order  :  But  there  was 
no  fuch  Thing,  either  in  the  firft  Inftitution  of  Baptifm 
or  in  the  continued  Adminiftration  of  it  afterward* 
Does  not  Mr.  F.  well  know,  that  he  can't  find  any  Inft  '- 
tution  for  Infants  Baptifm,  as  there  was  for  Infants  Ciri- 

cumcifionj  and  why  wouldhe labour  tomaintainhisPradtice 
hy  this  infipid  Argument,  when  the  Cafes  arc  no  Ways 
para^cl  ?  And  ,f  he  does  not  acknowledge  thi.s,  I  demand 
the  Place  where  the  Inftitution  of  Infant- baptifm  may  be 
tound,  or  that  gives  an  Account  of  its  continued  Adminif- 
tration  afterwards  ? 

^   He  further  a  Js  us,    *  How  would  this  Argument  con- 
elude,  vtz.    That  becaufe  Abraham  was  circumcifed  af- 
ter  he  was  corne  of  Age,    therefore  all  Infants  were  ex- 
cluded ?      I  Anf.  It  would  conclude  much  like  his  Ar- 
gument  for  Infant-baptifm  ;    namely.  The  Pofterity  of 
Jibraham  in  fo  doing,  would  aft  contrary  to  God's  Direc- 
tion, in  not  circumcifing  their  Infants,  as  our  Opponents 
go  contrary    to  his  Dircftion  in  baptizing  them,  .^^r^ 
XVI.    15,   16      2  Tim.  i.    13.     feeing  that  profeffing  Be- 
lievers are  the  only  Subjeas  of  Baptifm. 

I  don't  begrudge  him  ^  all  the  Confirmation  his  Argu- 
ment geto  by  the  Inftance  of  IJhmael\  Pofterity  ;  who,  as 
lie  fays,  did  not  circumcife  their  Children  'till  the  i7th 
Year  of  their  Age,  becaufe  IJhmaelv;^s  of  that  Age  at  the 
hrft  Inftitution  of  Circumciiion.  If  deviating  from  the 
ftrlt  Inftitution  and  due  Adminiftration  of  an  Ordinance 
puts  1  erfons  on  a  Par  with  I/hmael's  Pofterity,  truly  we 
have  many  IJhmaelites  round  us  in  our  Day. 

Mr.  F.  is  not  willing  to  leave  his  Anfwers  to  thefe  Ob- 
jeftions,  without  putting  his  Opponents  upon  a  fecond 
Conliaeration  of  them.  It  feems  he  is  mighty  willincr  to 
get  the  Force  of  thefe  Scriptures  turn'd  afide  fome  Way  or 
ot^er  that  inftead  of  following  thefe  Texts  (and  others) 
which  do  defignedly  treat  of  the  Ordinance  (which  are 
furely  the  Places  moft  likely  to  guide  us  to  a  right  Under- 
standing of  the  proper  Subjeds  of  it;  he  might  bring 
jn  his  Coiifequences  for  lufant-bspUiip,  taken  Irgm  fucl> 

places 


t    ^3     ) 

places  of  Scripture  as  treat  quite  on  other  Subjefls  ;  but 
to  do  him  the  Pleafure,  let  us  confider  the  Matter  over 
a<Tain,  i.  '*  Do  thefe  Texts  prove  a  Repeal  of  Infants 
Church  membeffliip  ?"  Yes,  much  flronger  than  all 
his  Confequences  prove  their  Right  to  Baptifm  ',  becaufe 
a  Perfonal  Faith,  and  Fruits  of  Repentance,  are  always 
requir'd  in  order  to  Baptifm,  Infants  being  incapable  of 
either,  therefore  they  have  nothing  to  do  vi^ith  it.  2.  'Do 
'  not  all  thefe  Scriptures  refer  to  grown  Perfons  ?  And 
'  what  then  can  they  prove  in  refpeft  to  Children  ?'  Jnf, 
Therefore  none  but  the  Perfons  they  refer  to,  have  any 
Right  to  the  Ordinance,  methinks  is  no  bad  Confe- 
quence. 

3.  "  Gan  our  Antagonifts  charge  us  with  baptizing 
ungofpelliz'd  grown  Perfons,  without  Teaching,  or  Pro- 
feflionofFaith.'^w/.OurConteft  is  not  about  their  baptizing 
grown  Perfons,  how  they  deal  with  them  they  muft  beft 
know  J  but  if  current  Reports  be  true,  they  baptize  fomc 
grown  Perfons,  who  (as  well  as  fome  Infants  whofe  Pa- 
rents) are  not  admitted  to  the  Lord's  Table  :  And  what 
Sort  of  Gofpelliz'd  Perfons  fuch  are,  let  themfelves  judge. 
But  to  the  Cafe  in  Hand  ;  we  charge  them  with  baptiz- 
ing ungofpelliz'd  little  Perfons,  for  fo  Infants  are,  unlefs 
they  are  born  gofpelliz'd  ;  or  fuck  in  the  Principles  of  the 
Gofpel,  with  their  Mother's  Milk  ;  for  they  can't  be  fo 
by  Teaching,  nor  by  any  fuppos'd  Right  m  the  Cove- 
nant ;  for  to  be  gofpelliz'd  imports  one  that  has  em- 
brac'd  the  Do<Slrines  of  the  Gofpel.  There  is  therefore 
very  good  and  fufficient  Reafon  why  we  advance  thefe 
Scriptures  againft  thofe  whofe  daily  Practice  it  is  to  bap- 
tize ungofpelliz'd  Perfons. 

There  is  one  Argument  more  which  Mr.  F.  lays  very- 
great  Strefs  on,  as  tho'  it  would  help  him  in  what  he  en- 
deavours to  propagate,    and    it  runs  after  this  Manner, 

*  Now  it  is  a  plain  Way  of  Reafoning,  that  which  wouhi 

*  be  the  mofl  proper  Addrefs,  even  tho'  Infants  were  de- 

*  fign'd  to    be    included,     cannot   poflibly    prove  them. 

*  to  be  excluded  ;    but  to    require    Profeflion  of  Faith 

*  from  the  Parents  in  order  to  Baptifm,  was  the  moft  pro- 

*  per,    even  tho'  their  Infants  were  defign'd  to  be  inclu- 
*■  ded  :  Thcrefgre  to  require  Frofeflion  of  Fs^ith  from  Pa- 

.*  rents- 


(    94    ) 

•  rents  in  order  to  Baptifm,    does  not  prove  their  Chil- 
•dren  to  be  excluded.'     y/;;/]  This  Argument   is  a  mere 
Gmgle  of  Words,    and   won't  bear   up  what  he  would 
build  upon  it,  unlefs  he  could  make  appear,  that  the  Or- 
der of  the  Commiflion,    Mat.  xxviii.  (for  that  is  one  of 
the  Places  referred  to)  is  to  be  obferved  only  when  Mini- 
Iters  are  to  preach  to  unchriftianiz'd  Jews  and  Pagans  ; 
"which  to  aflert  is  quite  abfurd.     Mr.  F.  muft  not  think 
hard  that  I  do  hereby  call  upon  him  tofhew  his  Authority, 
for  his  forfaking  the  Order  of  the  Commijfion,   which  re- 
quires Teaching   before  Baptizing,    when  he  has  to  da 
with  the  numerous  Offspring  of  Church-members  ?    Pray 
■what  Scripture  or  Rcafon  has   he  to  fiipport  him  in  his 
Pcrverfion  of  the  Words  of  God,     by   fetting    Baptizing 
before   Teachings    to  fuit  his  Notion  of  Infant-baptifm, 
When  he  has  to  do  with  Believers  Infants  ?     Is  the  Com- 
miffion  of  our  Lord  a  mere  Leaden  Rule,    and  a  moveabU 
Dial^  that  may  be  bent  and  turn'd  any  Way,   to  counte-  « 
nance  the  moft  crooke(^  Aflertions,   and  Scripturelefs  Opi- 
Jiions  ?     Far  be  it  from  us  to  think  fo.     Notwithftinding 
all  the  Endeavours  of  our  Opponents  to  prove  the  Right 
of  Infants  to  Baptifm,  they'll  never  be  able  to  fhew  that 
they  have  a  right  Subjed  of  this  Ordinance,  but    (One 
who  is  firft  taught)   as  the  Commiflion  prefcribes  ;   which 
is  theftated  unvariable  Rule  to  Minifters  in  the  Execution 
of  their  Truft,     throughout  all  Ages  ;    however  fome, 
thro'  the  Prevalency  of  Education  or  Cuftom,  may  devi- 
ate from  it.     Further,   What  a  bold  Refleaion  is  here 
caft  on  the  Divine  Wifdom  of  the  great  Law-giver,    by 
this  Kind  of  Reafoning  !    As  if  Chrill:  could  not  direft  his 
Miniftcrs  to  ufe  another  more  proper  Addrefs,  if  it  had 
been  his  Will  Infants  fhould  be  baptized  :    Befides  the  Ar- 
gument with   greater  Force    of  Reafon   and   Scripture, 
turns  in  our  Favour  :  Unlefs  Mr.  F.  could  make  appear, 
that  another  Kind  of  Addrefs  could  have  been  more  pro- 
perly ufed,    when  Infants  were  defign'd  to  be  excluded 
from  Baptifm. 

What  Mr.  F.  offers  for  Illuftration  of  this  Argument, 
Wz.  *  That  was  he  to  preach  among  the  Pagans^  he  does 
'  not  fee  how  he  could  avoid  fpeaking  to  them  in  the 

'  Stratrt 


r  9^5  > 

*  Strain  of  the  above  quoted  Scriptures.'  is  no  better  than 
if  he  fhould  tell  us,  that  were  he  to  preach  among  the 
Pagans^  he  would  obferve  and  follow  the  Order  of 
Chrift's  Commiflion,  and  the  Praaice  of  the  Apoftles  j 
but  that  now  he  ads  inconfiftent  with  both  :  And  what 
can  be  more  abfurd  ? 

This  Gentleman  feems  very  fond  of  ftartingObjedions, 
that  he  may  enjoy  the  Pleafure  of  anfwering  them.  If 
none  contend  for  Perfons  to  be  baptized  at  Thirty  Years 
of  Age,^  Chrift  was,  to  what  Purpofe  fhould  Mr.  i^.  fet 
himfelf  to  oppofe  that  which  none  contend  for  nor  praSl'ife  ? 
This  looks  as  if  he  wanted  fomething  to  do,  and  he  might 
be  fureto  come  off  with  a  Vidtory,  when  he  undertakes 
to  anfwer  an  Objedion  which  no-body  makes  but  him- 
felf. If  thofe  other  Objedlions  which  he  palTcs  over  in 
Silence,  were  of  the  fame  Nature  with  this,  he  might 
well  think  'twai  Time  ill-fpent  to  folve  them.  However, 
•  by  the  Way,  it  may  be  obferved,  that  it  is  not  unfafe 
nor  diftionourable  to  imitate  the  great  Captain  of  our  Sal- 
vation, viz.  That  one  come  to  Years  of  Underftanding, 
ftiould  be  the  Subject  of  this  facred  Ordinance,  which 
accords  very  well  with  his  Example,  and  is  perfe6llf 
agreeable  with  his  revealed  Mind  and  Will. 

Here  Mr.  F.  folds  down  the  Leaf  upon  his  former  Ar- 
guments, and  qnters  upon  other  Topicks,  in  Defence  of 
his  received  'Tenet  of  Infant-Baptifm,  and  introduces 
himfelf  thus  ;   '  I  have  avoided  quoting  the  Teftimonies  of 

*  the  primitive  Fathers,  on  Purpofe  to  flop  their  ground- 
'  lefs  Clamour,    that  we  derive   our  Practice  ef  Infant 

*  Baptifm  from  Tradition  :    They   may  fee  their  Mi- 

*  ftake,    we  derive  it  from  Scripture,    and  are  under  no 

*  Neceffity  of  having  Recourfe  to  human  Teftimony  for 

*  its  Defence.'  Anf.  Incidit  in  Scyllam,  cupiens  vitare 
Charybdim,  Whilfl  our  Opponents  would  fain  fhun  one 
Extream,  they  unhappily  fall  on  the  other.  Pray  what 
places  of  Scripture  are  thofe  which  they  derive  Infant 
Baptifm  from  ?  for  he  joins  with  us,  that  all  thofe  Places 
of  Scripture  which  require  Repentance  and  Faith,  in  order 
to  Baptifm,  arc  addrefs'd  only  to  grown  Perfons,  and  not  t» 
Infants »    And  we  find  no  Inltance  of  Baptifm's  being  ad- 

miniflred 


(    96    ) 

miriiftred  without  fuch  Qi^ialificatlons  ;  then  it  plainly 
ff.Uows,  Infant- Baptifm  is  unfcriptural.  How  can  iVIr, 
F.  fay  they  derive  it  from  Scripture,  when  no  fuch  Thing 
is  found  riiere  ?  Does  he  think,  for  him  and  others  to 
father  that  upon  the  Scripture  which  it  does  not  own, 
or  to  wreft  Scripture  for  its  Defence,  won't  be  greater 
Grounds  and  Caufe  of  Clamour  (as  he  calls  it)  than  if 
fuch  a  Practice  was  carried  on  merely  on  the  Account  of 
Tradition  ?  Wherever  they  derive  it  from,  we  are  quite 
infenfible  that  we  lay  under  any  Miflake  in  this  Matter  : 
Neither  has  Mr.  F.  convinc'd  us,  that  Infaat-Baptifm 
can  at  all  pretend  to  any  Divine  Original.  But  then  he 
tells  us    *   it  was  all  along  pra<Sl:ifed  by  the  Church,   from 

*  the  beginning  of  Chrilti:^n!ty,  and   was    received  from 

*  the  Apoflles :    We  have  the  Suffrage  of  no  lefs  a  Man 

*  than  Ireneus^  whofe  Mafler  Polycarp    was  the  Apoftle 

*  y^'^'s  Difciple  ;  who  tells  us,  [That  the  Church  learn' d 

*  from  the  Apoflles  to  baptize  Children.')  Anf.  It  has  not 
as  yet  been  made  evident,  that  Infant-Baptifm  was  all 
along  praiSlifed  by  the  Church  from  the  Beginning  of 
Chriftianity,  or  for  a  confideiable  Time  after  it.  Mr. 
F.  might  have  known,   that  ProtcJlantSy  efpccially  Dif- 

fenterSi  profefs  to  pay  no  great  Refpe(St  to  any  Pradlice 
handed  down,  under  the  fpecious  Title  of  Tradition  Apo- 
/ielical^  which  is  not  mention'd  in  Holy  Scripture  j  nei- 
ther can  we  find  in  our  Hearts  to  fhew  much  Regard  to 
InfaBt-Baptifm  (which  is  Scripturelefs)  tho'  Mr.  F.  pre- 
tends it  was  received  from  the  Apoftles.  But  were  it  as 
true,  as  it  is  falfe,  that  the  Churchea  immediately  after 
the  Apoflles  baptized  Infants,  it  would  be  no  Ground  for 
us  to  do  fo,  unlefs  it  had  been  reveal'd  in  the  facred  Pages, 
which  contain  the  unerring,  full,  and  certain  Rule  of  our 
Faith  and  Pradice. 

Let  Perfons  once  lay  afide  the  Scripture,  and  fly  to 
Tradition  for  Refuge,  why  they  are  in  the  open  Way  to 
receive  and  maintain  numberlefs  Fancies  and  Abfurdities, 
with  as  good  Grace  and  equal  Authority  as  our  Oppo- 
nents can  their  Pradlice  of  Infant-Baptifm.  I  have  a  great 
deal  of  Reafon  to  queftion  the  Truth  of  what  is  here 
alledg'd,  viz.  That  Ireneus  any  where  fays,  *  the  Church 

*  Icarn'd 


(    97     ) 

*  learn'd  from  the  Apoftles  to  baptfze  Children  ;'  fot 
(amongftotherl^hings  which  incline  meto  think  this  to b6 
an  J&ufe  of"  Irenetts)  the  Words  feem  to  be  taken  from  a 
Marginal  Note  on  a  certain  Sentence  [  %  ^i  per  eum 
Renafcuniur  in  Deuin  \  hfatites --']  vhich  goes  under 
Irensus  his  Name  ;  upon  which  'tis  obferved  in  the 
Margent  by  the  Conimentator,  Apertl  cotifirmatis  Apojlo- 
hrum  traditicnem  de  haptifmo  Infavtiuin  parvtdorum  *  —^ 
If  the  Cule  be  thus,  'tis  even  as  Mr.  IVali  f  favs  on  the 
like  Occafion  j     '  The  Author    does  not  fay   that,     for 

which  he  is  cited  ;   but  he  fiys  fomething  fi^om  whence 
the  other  does  draw  it,    as  a  Confequence  ;    and    thea 

*  fets  down  that  Confequence,  as  if  it  were  the  Author's 
'  own  Words.'  Which  Praaice  is  intolerable,  either 
to  do  (o,  or  cite  what  is  done  fo  by  another.  Hov/ever 
Mr.  jF.  is  hereby  defired  to  cite  the  Place  in  Jreneus  his 
Works  (which  are  reputed  genuinej  where  thefe  Words 
he  mentions,  may  be  found  ;  or  elfe  lie  under  the  Charge 
of  abuiing  Ireneus  bafely,  to  countenance  his  Praaice, 
and  to  procure  a  more  welcome  Entertainment  for  it,  in 
the  Affedions  of  his  Readers. 

*  I  haveheard  (fays  he)fomeofourOpponents  aflert  (tho* 

*  without  Book)  That  Infant  Baptifm  is  a  Relick  of  Po- 
pery, and  a  novel  Pradice  ;   but  the  primitive  Fathers, 

'  who  were  before  Popery  in  the  Pradice  of  it,  prove  the 
*-  Contrary.  Anf.  If  he  means  before  Popery  began  to 
work,  'lis  falfe  ;  for  the  My  fiery  of  Iniquity  began  to 
work  in  the  Apoftle  Paur^  Time,  2  Tl?ef.  ii.  7.  and  none 
can  pretend  to  fhew  any  Inlhnces  of  Infants  baptized  in 
PauH  Time  :  But  if  he  means  'twas  pradifed  before 
Popery  came  to  its  Height,  io  were  many  other  Errors  al- 
fo  ;  or  elfe  how  fhould  Popery  come  to  its  Height  ?  parti- 
cularly, giving  the  Sacrament  of  the  Supper  to  Infants, 
and  a/Terting  it  to  be  necefTary  to  their  Salvation  j  as  the 
Rev,  Mr.  Dickinfon  teflifies.§ 

And  what  a  great  Step  towards  the  advancing  of  Pope- 
G  rjr 

X  Vid,  Iren.  advetf,  Hxr.  lib.  4.  cap.  39.  pag.  161.  Who  by  him  ars 
regenerated  unto  God  ;  Infants  —  *  Evidently  eftablifhing  the  Tradition  of 
the  ApoftJes  concerning  the  Baptifm  of  little  Infants.  f  HjfH  of  Inf.  bap, 
P*8e  «59.     \  Doilrine  of  R^generatisn  vind.  page  56, 


(      9S     ) 

ly  in  the  World,  was  it  to  hold,   ||   *  Thaf  to  fnfFer  the 

•  Intant  to  die  unbapiizcd,    was   to   ei. danger  its  baiva- 

•  tion.*  But  whciliei  iiiiaiu-bapfifm  be  a  Relick  of  Po- 
pery or  not,  'tis  plaiii  'us  a  Relick  ot  fomi.thing  not  war- 
ranred  by  the  vVurd  of  God. 

It  muft  be  alwavs  obferv'd  and    remembicd,    that   the 
Rule   to  which  we  ate  dired^ed  t   i  »r)ing    any   Pia<S^lice,    ^ 
whether  it  be  «(9y(7,   is  the   Holy  Scripture,  Ija.  viii.    20,   ■ 
J!l4at.  xix.  8.    Rom.  iv.  3.      And  in  this  C^ife,   we  fa*  with 
pKjteflant^  X  "^  other  Care>,   IVhat  is  in  the  IVord  oj  God 
is    TRUE    and   OLD  ;    and     fuch    is    th>--   Dudlrine   and 
Practice  of  Believeis  Baptifm.      And  what  is  not  contain  d     , 
therein,     is    FALSE    and    N£W   (tho'   of  many  Hundred  J 
Tears /ianding)  and  fuch  is  the  Dodrine  and  Practice  of    ' 
L^fant  baptifm.       Hence  our  calling  this  Pra<S.ice  Xovi/y 
is  not  a  mere  Clamour,    any  otherwife  than  fpeaking  the 
Truth  is  (o. 

*   Hut  let  them  now  go  to    (favs  he)    and  ranfack  the 

*  Volumes  ot  Antiq  ^itv,     and    fee   if  they   can   give  an 

*  Accocifit  from  authentic  Hiltory  of  our  Beginning.     If 

*  they    cd.inot,    they   are   behind  ha..d   with  us,     fur  we 

*  can   giv^e   them  a  pretty  full  and  authentic  Account  of 

*  the  Rife  and  Pro^refs  of  their  Party.'  Rep/y.  This  is 
pleafantly  faid  !  The  whitcjl  Head  it  feems  /hull  carry  the 
Caufe.  I  confefs  our  Opponents  are  indeed  beforehand 
With  us,  in  this  Point  ;  and  there  is  a  great  deal  of  Rea- 
fon  for  it,  becaufewe  have  not  fuch  authentic  Hiflory  «)f 
their  Beginning,  as  they  have  of  ours,  l^he  Recoid>  of 
Holy  Scripture  abundantly  fupply  them,  to  fhew  when 
we  be?an  ;  but  we  have  not  fuch  Records,  to  fliew  when 
they  began.  But  by  the  beft  Account  yet  brou2ht  to  our 
Hands,  from  the  Volumes  of  Antiquity,  the\  did  not  be- 
gin to  appear  in  the  World,  (if  Mr.  F.  means  b\  their  He- 
ginning,  when  Infants  were  firft  baptized^  till  about  the 
third  Ontury  :  About  which  Time  the  Sacrament  of  the 
Supper  *  was  alfo  given  to  Infants  i  which  Practice  con- 
tinued in  the  Church  for  many  A^.^s.  But  if  he  means 
by  their  Beginning,  when  the  Prefbyterian  Se£t  began,  it 


was 


U  Wall's  Hlft.  p.  44.      X  M''">'n|t  Exrrciff  aeainft  Pop.  p.  aog.      •  Vid. 
MttiiTr.  L'Aiio^ue'e  Hifi.  sf  the  Sucbaiilt.  p.  zay. 


(    99    ) 

was  not  till  the  15th  Century.  There  is  therefore  all  th* 
Reafon  in  the  World,  if  Antiquity  fliall  turn  the  Scales, 
to  allow  us  to  he  in  the  Right  :  For  our  Dod^rine  and 
Practice,  That  Prof'efling  Believers  are  the  proper  Si'b- 
jedts  of  Baptifm,  is  the  very  felt  fame  which  the  Apjilles 
taught.  And  theSciiptural  andApollolicalDx^rine  which 
always  requires  Faith  and  Repentance  in  Peifonsin  order 
to  Bapiifm,  does  from  the  Beginning  virtually  and  really 
oppofeand  exclude  the  contrary  Doctrine,  which  teaches 
that  Perfons  may  be  baptized,  who  do  neither  repent  nor 
believe,  as  in  tiie  Cafe  of  Infants. 

Hence  our  Oppofing  fuch  Kmd  of  Baptifm  as  our  Op- 
ponents plead  ior,  is  doing  nothing  more  than  what  is 
really  contain'd  in  the  Dodlrine  of  Believers  Baptifm  it  lelf, 
fo  plentifully  confirm'd  in  Scripture  :  And  in  fpight  of 
all  Oppofition,  our  Pra£lice  of  baptizing  Believers  only, 
will  always  appear  perfe£l:l  /  concurrent  with  all  the 
Scripture  Examples  of  Baptifm.  Since  then  our  Begin- 
ning is  io  good  and  honourable^  I  need  not  be  much  con- 
cern'd  at  prefent  to  give  any  Relation  of  our  ProgrefSt 
for  Mr.  F,  fays  he  can  give  ^  pretty  full  and  authentic  Ae^ 
count  of  it^  for  us. 

But  again,  itis  the  moft  inconclufive  and  fallacious  Way 

of  Reafoning  that  can  be,  which  Mr.  F.  ufes  here  ;  much 

"  /like  what  one  Mr,  IVhtJfon  ufed  once,  viz.  *  Becaufe  we 

^'  know  not  the  Time  when  Infant- baptifm  was  inftiuted, 

'  we  may  therefoic  fay    it  is  from  Heaven,  and  not  of 

»  Men.* 

To  which  Mr.  Hutchinfm  %  returns  the  following  An- 
fwcr.  *  Now  I  perceive  the  Reafon  why  he  beftows  fo 
'  glorious  a  §  Title  upon  his  Book.     But  ftiall  we  con- 

*  elude  that   the  Tares  the  Enemy  fowed,    while    the 

*  Watchmen  fl  pt,     were  from  Heaven  and  not  of  Men  ; 

*  fince  the  droufy  Watchmen  cannot  calculate  the  Time 
'.tliev  were  fown   to  a  Minute  t     Learned  Ufoer  gives 

*  Malone  the  Jefult  an  Anfwer  to  this  Purpufe,  when  he 

*  maintain'd  that  the  Mafs  was  of  divine  Inftitution,  be- 

*  caufe  Proreftants  could  not  exa<31y  find  out  its  Nativi- 
'  ty  ;    or  when  the  Fooleries  that  attend  it,    had  their 

G  2  *  Original  ; 

%  Animad.  p.  36.    §  vie.  Infant-baptifm  ftom  Heaven,  and  not  from  Men. 


(      100      ) 

*  Original   :     Mufi  we  receive  every  Error  tuhen  tve  can^ 

*  not  (.ijjigri  the  critical  A^inute  of  its  Breaching  f  Suppofe 
'  I  knovv  not  the  Time  when  Mr.  IFhijion  was  born,  (hall 

*  I  therefore  conclude  him  not  to  be  a  Man,  nor  of  Men  ; 

*  but  A\o\)tfrom  Heaven^  t^c.     Is  it   rot  enough  it  we 

*  can  tell  the  Time  when  Infant- baptifm  was  not  in  the 

*  Church  r  and  that  Mr.  Baxter  has  (very  kindly)  done 
'  for  us,  when  he  '"avs,  Thnt  it  has  no  exprefs  mention  in 
'  the  Recor/ls^  or  Hijhries  of  the  Chiv  ch^  for  the  firjl  (and 
"  pureji)  Centuries.      And  if  this  be  the  Ground   of  his 

*  Mock- title,   I  fhall  conclude  it  to  be  (like  Mr.  Bax' 

*  terh  Plain  Scripture  Proof)  of  a  Gomp]<exion  that  can- 
«  not  blufh.* 

And  thus  Mr.  F.  argues  ;    *  If  they  cannot  fhew  any 

*  Time  hnce  the  Aportle's  Days,  wherein  our  Practice  of 

*  Infant- b^^ptifm   began,     it  gives  Ground   to  conclude, 

*  that  It  it  did  not  begin  fince  their  Days.*—-  Such  Kmd 
of  Reafonings  are  quite  inconclufive,  becaufe  it  is  beyond 
all  D>»ubt  there  is  no  Account  of  Infant- baptifm  in 
iicipru'C  ;  it  therefore  muft  begin  fome  Time  fince  ; 
Sim'  where  fhall  we  fix  its  Beginning,  but  at  the  Time 
vhen  we  have  the  firft  mention  of  it  (of  any  Weight  or 
^Credit)  in  thofe  Volumes  of  Antiquity  ;  which,  as  Dr. 
^  G/?/^  tcftifies,  is  froiTi  the  Ctfr?Z'<7^/«;rt»  Fathers,  about 
the  3d  Century.  If  Vlr.  F.  denies  this,  he  and  his  Bre- 
thren may  ^<?  tOy  and  ranfack  the  Volumes  of  Antiquity 
over  again  (\i  they  think  it  is  worth  while  to  fpend  fo 
much  of  their  precious  Time  about  fupportmg  a  bcrip- 
turelefs  Pradlicej  and  give  us  undoubted  Inftances  of  it 
ifthevcm,  fr.)m  the  Apoftle'sTimc^  down  to  the  Time  I 
jmention'd.  Alfo  Mr.  F.  is  obHg'd  bv  his  own  Rule  to 
Ihew  us  the  Year  when  the  Pia£lice  of  Infant*  Communi- 
on bciran,  and  cite  us  the  Chnnological  Table  where  we 
may  find  it,  and  give  us  the  Names  of  the  Ring- leaders, 
fcff.  or  elfe,  according  to  his  Way  of  Aiguing,  there 
wll  be  the  f;<me  Ground  to  conclude  that  that  Pradtice 
/whxh  §  St.  A^Jiin  calls  an  Apoftolical  Traditumj  did 
jnot    begin    ncithtfr    fiucc   the  Apoftle's  Days.     Indeed 

C« 

%  L$tt«r  13.  p.  5aSt       %  Lik>  of  Prophecy,  p.  J19* 


to  go  about  to  prove  any.  Thing  after  this  Manner,  is  moft 
abfurd  and  ridiculous. 

As  to  Mr.  F's  Suggeftion  that  our  Opinion  began  lefs 
than  300  Years  ago,  'tis  to  be  ranked  amongft  the  reft 
of  his  improper  Methods,  and  fubtle  Artifices,  to  fup- 
port  his  Pradtice  :  But  with  what  Face  can  he  fay  or 
publifti  fuch  a  Falftiocd  to  the  World,  that  our  Opinion 
began  within  the  Compafs  of  fuch  a  Fin-n^  ?  when  'tis 
nothing  elfe  bat  what  is  plainly  and  undeniably  revealed  in 
Holy  Scripture,  viz.  That  Believers  are  the  proper  Sub- 
je<Sls  of  Baptifm,  We  may  therefore  veryjuftly  fay  with, 
Proreffants  (in  other  Cafea)  that  our  Opinion  is  Gon- 
tain'd  in  Scripture,  where  Mr.  F's  Opinion  of  Infant- 
baptifm  never  was.  And  can  he  deny  us  to  be  properl^r 
the  Succefiors  of  the  Apoftles,  who  hold  the  fame  Doc- 
triae  as  they  did,  and  praflife  accordingly  ?  If  he  de- 
nies this,  let  him  ftiew  wherein  we  deviate  from  them 
in  this  Cafe.  On  the  other  Hand,  can  he  imagine  that 
he  a(Sts  according  to  the  Practice  of  the  Apoftles  in  his 
Baptizing  Infants,  when  he  can't  fliew  in  one  Inftance, 
that  they  ever  did  fo  ?  in  a  Word,  what  I  would  de- 
fire  of  h'm  at  prefent,  is  to  fhew  that  our  Opinion  is  not 
foundedJn  Scripture  ;  but  if  lie  cannot  do  this,  leth:ni 
then  forbear  to  call  that  a  New  Opinion,  which  is  noneo^ 
ther  but  the  Dofirine  of  the  Lord  Jefus,  bow  contemtu- 
Oufly  foever  he  is  pleas'd  to  treat  it. 

Mr.  p.  feems  very  much  unacquainted  with  the  Man- 
ner how  Error's  enter  into  the  Church,  by  his  Way  of 
fpeaking,  viz.    '  Or  elfe  let   them  give  even   probable 

*  Reafons  how  Infant- baptifm  could  begin  un-notic'd,  and 

*  without  any  Noife  or  Buftle  V  AnJ.  If  any  want  to  be 
inform'd  how  Errors  in  general  begin,  or  enter  into  tho 
Church,  let  him  read  2  Pet.  ii,  i,  2,  3.  Mat.  xiii.  25. 
with  other  fuch  like  Places  of  Scripture.  Pray  what 
Noife  ov  Bujile  is  made  when  Perfons  adt/^r/w*/)'  under  the 
Cloak  of  feign'd  Words  ?  and  if  any  Noifc  (hould  be 
made,  yet  when  Men  are  afleep,  they  cannot  fo  readily 
obferve  it  :  And  it  feems  Infant-baptifm  was  firft  intro- 
duc'd  after  fome  fuch  Manner,  under  fome  fair  Pre- 
I^ACC  oi  \^  Ocipg  Q^ceiTary  to  Salvi^tioni^^.  but  yet  noc 

G  3  ^'\i\ 


C  102  ) 
with  fuch  enti'-e"  Silence  neither,  as  our  Opponents  fug- 
ged i  foi  Tertuilian  who  flounfl.ed  ab(.ut  t.^e  Beginning 
of  the  3d  Ctntury^  and  (as  Mr.  XSymJon  Uv^)  was  a  /eam- 
ed  Preacher  in  the  City  of  Carthage  in  Africa^  oppoled 
it.  a>  appears  by  his  Words,  as  Mr.  IVall  renders  them, 
t  '  Huttiiey  whofe  Datv  it  is  to  adininilter  Bapiifm,  arc 
'   to  know,     tha»  it  mu(^  not  be  given    raftily,     Give  to 

*  every  one  that  ajketh    thee,   has   its  proper  Subjedt,  and 

*  rclaies  to  Alm.^  giving  :    But  that  Connmand  rarher  is 

•  heic  to  be  conlidered,    Give  not  that  which  is  holy  to 

•  Dogs     neiiher    caft    your  Pearls  before  Swine.      And 
«  that  you  Jay    Hdmk  fuddenh  on  no  Man,    neither  be 

*  pirraker  ofeveiy  One's  Fa. .lts.---'rhereloie  according 

•  tceverv  One%  Condition  and  Dijp^fuioriy  and  alfo  their 


Age,    the  delaying  ot  Hap^'frn  is  i\i   .Q  pi>-fiable,    efpe- 
«  culiy  in  ih.'  Cafe  ot  littlf  Children  ;     tor  wha^  Need  is 

*  tlicre  that  the  God    arheis  (Sponforei^  Suretiesj    Ihould 

*  be  brought  into  Danger  ?     hecau  e  they  mav  euher  fail 

*  of  their  ^'romifcs  bv  iXath,    01  rhey  may  be  miftaken 

*  by    a   Child's   proving    of    w  eked    Difpofition.     Our 

*  Lord  fays  indeed.    Do  not  forbid  them  to  come  to  me  : 

*  1  herefore    let  them    come    'vhen  ihev  are  grown  up  ; 

*  let  them  come  when^  they  underftand  ;    when  they  are 

*  inftruded   wn.rhcr  it  is  rha.  they  c  -me  ;    let  them    be 

*  made  l.hriftians  when  thev  can  kni.w  Chrift.  What 
need  rheir  guiltlcfs  Age  make  fuch  hafte  to  the  For- 
givenefs  of  Sms  .f  Mer>  will  proceed  more  wanly  n 
worldly  Things  :  And  he  that  (hould  not  have  earthly 
G.'od^  commiued  to  him,  yet  fliall  have  heavenly. §  Let 
ihem  know  how  to  defire  this  Salvation,  th\t  vou  may- 
appear  to  have  tliven  to  o  ,e  that  afkech.'    This  Pafloge 

(wit.i  oihers)  ftiew  that  Tertuilian  was  aga>nlt  Intant- 
bapMf.n  ;  and  Dr.  Gale  has  refuted  Mr.  [Vatl\  A.ga- 
mcnts  tor  the  Contrary.  Mr.  F.  may  be  pleafed  to  lead 
again,  and  he'll  fi.^d  Infant  baprifm  was  oppofcd  be- 
fore the  Time  of  Auxeniim  the  Jrrian,  in  the  fourth 
Century.  ,  ^^ 

1  H.ft.  of  the  rhurrh.  t  WallN  Wft.  p.  ^r. 

nit  diviac  fhiogs  w  l\Kh  »a  would  not  l>c  int.ullpi  with  e*fthly  S«bftaoce. 


(     103    ) 
«  L?t  tWm  but  (hew  us  (fays  Mr.  F.)    how  it  confifts 
<   uitl.  G.'u^  Pr.  m.fes  to  Ins  Htcplc,  tl-iit  the  Generality 
*  of     ho    moft   v-m.neiu    t  hriltians,     the    wifeft,     moft 
»  leanie/,      moft    n.quGtive,     and    molt    holy    Dwines, 
«  faojld  be  1.  ft, to  live  and  aie  o«f  of  the  C'huich,  after 
«  a'l    pofl-bie   161I1  f nee   to  dl^co^er   the  Truth    in    this 
«  Point  ?'      Jnf     fl'-ie    s  a  Bundle  o^  great  Titles  to  a- 
mufe  the  Wu;.d  wuh  !     We  aie  not  to  follow  Paul  any 
further  than  he  followed  Lh.iO.      If  the  Bereans  ft.atched 
the  !?ciipture  daily,   to  know  vh.-tl.ei  th.e  1  hin^rs  fpulcen 
b^  Paul  were  fo,  and  were  cummei.deu  tor  then  L  doing* 
JSIs  x\n.  II.    is  it  then  any  Difp^rasemtnt  to  thofe  moft 
learned,  and  moit  hoU  Divines,  that  we  (hould  alfo  exa- 
miu.  wb^tthcv  fa.  by  the  Ttfiimony  of  Scripture,  to  fee 
whe  hei  fn'aiit-baptifm  be  the  Truth  of  Goo  or  no  ?   and 
when  we  can't  find  it  revealed  theie,  n(  r  they  don't  direft 
lis   where  it  may    be   found,    iet  Mr.  F.  tell  us  which  ts 
bell  and  fafeft  for  us  to  follow,  thofe  great  Men  (whom 
on  other  Accounts  we  do  hi^hlv  efteem)   or  the  unernng 
and  infallible  Word  of  God,'    and  t\\c  Jhining  Example  of 
the   primitive    Chriftians,     the  more  wije^    more  learned^ 
and  more  holy  Apoftles  of  Jcfjs  Chnfl:    (who  were  infal- 
lible; in  this  Cafe  ;    and  who  do  unitedly   confirm  our 
Doaiineto  be  jult  and  true.     Or  is  Mr.  F  angry  with 
us,  becaufe  we  don't  take  what  thofe  great  Men  lay  upon 
truft,  and  beheve  Infant- baptifm  to  be    right,    without 
any   Trial,    becaufe  they  fav  lb-- -How  then  fhould   we 
efcape  his  Cenfure  elfewheie  *  vi%.  '  That  many  People 
«  are  fo  ftupid  and  flothful,  as  never  to  fearch  for  Truth, 
*  nor  feek  to  fee  with  their  own  Eyes,  in  Matters  of  Re- 
'  ligiun.'     Seeing   Mr.    F.  allows  us  Liberty  to  ufe  our 
own  Eyes,  in  Matters  ot  Religion,  (hall  not  we  have  Li- 
berty alfo  to  a<Sl  in  religious  Matters,    according  to  what 
we  fee  without  Blame,  or  being  called  %  Schifmaticks  and 
Bigots  ?  Otherwife  of  what  Ufe  is  it,    for  us  to  fee  with 
our  own  Eyes  (unlefs  it  be  to  increafe  Stupidity  and  Sloth 
to  the  utmoft)     if  our  Confciences  muft  notwithflanding 
truckle  on  under   the  Influence  of  the  Reverend  Crowd, 
contrary  to  i  ight  received  ?    What  would  this  be,    but 
G  4  li^ 

^  Preface,  p.  S*         %  Ciiaxit.  Plea.  p.  114.  1    ' 


(  104  ) 
like  an  Afs  couching  down  between  two  Burthens  }  or 
like  a  Prefhyterian^  who  is  coininc'd  by  .Scnprure  thafc 
his  InraiU  Sprinkling  is  wrong,  but  dares  not  forfake  it, 
becaufe  of  the  Firebrands  and  Death  call  in  his  Way  J. 
Mr.  F's  Queftion  in  this  laft  cited  Par.i^raph,  is  eafily 
refolved,  by  obferving,  That  particular  Churches  may  be 
more  or  lefs  pure^  according  os  the  DoSitine  of  the  Gofpel  is 
taught  and  embracedy  Ordinances  admi  ijtred,  and 
fublick  IVorflAp  perform,  d  more  or  lefs  purely  in  them.  So 
that  our  Rejefting  Infant-baptifm,  as  a  Corruption  of  the 
facred  Ordinance  of  Jcfus  Chrift,  does  not  ..flPuid  Mr.-  F: 
thefe  Abfurdities  he  would  throw  upon  us  j  but  only  \>^ 
fpeaks,  that  we  btlieve  the  Communities  of  our  Oppo- 
nents to  be  far  lefs  pure  and  unhke  the  Apoft' lie  Chuich- 
cs,  than  our  own  j  which  none  czu  ju/ily  blame  us  for, 
"till  they  rationally  convince  us  of  the  Contrary. 

*  And  let  them  fay  whether  the  Body  of  fuch  Chrifti- 
*■  ans  and  Minifters,  with  the  wife  Reformers  and  cou- 
*  rageous  Martyrs,  be  not  on  our  Side  of  the  Qijeftion.' 
Jnf.  If  Truth  was  to  be  decided  by  Votes,  there  might 
be  fome  Weight  in  this  Argument  ;  but  feeing  it 
is  not,  this  is  of  no  great  Ufe  in  the  prefent  Con- 
troverfy  ;  but  fuch  as  it  is,  we  can't  fully  allow  it  them 
neither  ;  becaufe  there  have  been,  and  are  Thoufands  of 
Chriftians  who  rejed  their  Infant-baptifm  as  infipid 
and  Scripturelefs.  And  feeing  we  are  upon  it,  I  may 
juft  (hew  them  that  we  are  before  them  in  this  Cafe  :  Let 
them  give  us  any  Inftanccs  of  xVIartyrs  who  fufFered 
Death  upon  the  Account  of  Infant-baptifm  ;  as  we  can 
fhew  many  Inflances  of  Godly  Men,  who  fufFered  even 
unto  Death  for  denying  it.  They  may  fhew  that  Pcedo- 
baptifts  fufFered  Martyrdom  ;  but  none  fufFered  for  hold- 
ing Infant-baptifm  ;  or  this  was  no  Caufe  of  their  fufFer- 
ing.  Mr.  Rees  §  cites  Inflances/)f  many  who  fufFered 
even  to  Death  for  denving  Infant-baptifm,  and  profefling 
the  Contrary,  out  of  Gerrard  Brandt's  Hiflory  of  the  Re- 
formation j  whom  he  callb,  that  faithful  Dutch  Hijiori^ 
an.     The  Hiftorian  fays^     '  The  Reformation,  cxclu- 

'  five 

t  Vid .  Divine  Right  of  laf.  Bapt,  p.  6,  7,  38,     S  laf,  Bjptifm  no  laOij 


(     105     ) 

fiveof  Infant-baptifm,  wasfet  o-n  Foot  In  Switzerland, 
about  the  Year  1522,  by  the  Zq^\  o{  Conrad  Grebel 
and  Forlix  Mans,  both  Men  of  Learning,  who  fell  out 
with  Zuingl'ius  about  the  faid  Opinion.  But  wears 
told  that  this  Falling-out  cofl  them  very  dear  ;  for  tha 
Hillorian  informs  us  in  the  next  Paragraph,  that  upon 
Account  of  this  Difference,  was  the  firft  j?^/^  againll 
Anahaptijls  publiflied  at  Zurich  ;  in  which  there  was  a 
Penalty  of  a  Silver  Mark,  or  two  Guilders  Dutch  iVjo- 
nev,  fet  upon  all  fuch  as  fhould  fufFcr  themfelves  to  be 
re-baptized,  or  fhould  with  hold  Baptifm  from  their 
Children.  And  it  was  further  declared,  that  thofc 
who  openly  oppofed  this  Order,  fhould  be  yet  more  fe- 
verely^  treated.  Accordingly  the  faid  Fa:Hx  was 
drown'd  at  Zurich,  upon  the  Sentence  pronounc'd  by 
ZinngUus  in  thefe  four  Words,  ^ui  iterum  Mergity 
Mergatur  ;  that  is.  He  that  re-  baptizes  with  Water, 
let  him  be  drowned  in  the  Water.  This  happen'd  in 
the  Year  1526  ;  but  about  the  fame  Time,  and  fince, 
there  were  inore  of  them  put  to  Death  :  A  Procedure 
that  appeared  very Jirange  xo  fome.'     Upon  which  Mr. 

^^^j  juflly  obferves,-- 

*  Strange   indeed    1     and   very    melancholy  Times  I 

*  That  a  Protejlant,    and  a  Minijier  too,    fhould  pro- 

*  nounce  a  barbarous  and  inhuman  Sentence  upon  his  Bro" 

*  ther,    for  difputing  againfl  Infant  baptifm  :    A  Thmg 

*  which  at  beft,    has  but  fome  dark  Tradition  to  fupport 

*  it  i    for  there  is  not  one  Jngle  Text  in  the  whole  Bible ^ 

*  that  will  plainly  warrant  it,    and  many  Poedo-baptifla 

*  confefs  fomuch.* 

Again,  t    '  I  have  carefully  told  over  Five  Hundred 

*  and   Seventy  odd  Perfons  (all  Anabaptifls)  who  were 
'  put  to- Death  merely  on  Account  of  Religion,    cxclu- 

*  five  of,  and  in  Contradiftindtion  to  any  who  fufFered, 

*  as  chargeable  with    Treafon,    Rebellion,    Sedition,   bfc. 

*  Nor  have  I  rcckon'd  into  the  Number,  a  whole  Affem" 

*  hly  of  thefe  People  which  was  betrayed  at  Rotteraam  in 

*  the  Year  1544,  for  I  could  not  make  an  Eftimate  or 
f  them;  but  all  that  were  caught  of  thefe,  were  executed, 

^  Upon 


(     io6    ) 

*  Up«n  a  fair  Computation  then,  this  SnnrTing:  of  Ana- 

*  baptijis^     who  fLffered  abioiJ,     in  and  ub  w    the  Lovt 

*  Counviei^   for  their  Religious  Principles,  amounts  c  n- 

*  f.t^e.al>iy  to  above   the   highcft  NumDer  of  thofe,     of 

*  wh^rf  ever  Dtnoniinaiions,  who  were  put  to  Death  in 
'   England^     on   Account  of  the  Reh.i  mation.      What  I 

*  fu  ti<er  ..bferve,  is,    !  bar  in  the  Judgment  o\  Chrtji'mn 

*  Charity^  there  a;  pcj.ed  in  tlicfe,   not  only  equal  Fpm- 

*  ntf-.  «.t  Mmio,  a-id  the  Traces  of  a  g.od  Spirit,  but  they 

*  had  furh  divine  Franfports,  ard  lolid  Affurances  be- 
«  to-e   rhci    Exits^     as    eminently  attended   our  glorious 

*  B.itijh  AUttyrs.'  Hence  it  appears,  how  vain  and 
cmptv  ivJr.  F's  Preience  is,  as  well  as  how  falfe  is  that 
^-n.ch  follows,  viz.     '  On  the  other  Hand,  'tis  too  well 

*  known,  that  the  Ambaptifts  were  the  Dregs  and  Re- 

*  proach  of  the  Reformation   in   Germany,    where    they 

*  began,  and  in  every  Place  where  they  then  got  Footing.* 
jtnf.  If  all  other  Arguments  and  Methods  tail  our  Op- 
ponents, then  it  is  but  to  have  Recourfe  to  the  Anabap- 
ti^  in  Germany,  l^c.  that  if  by  any  Means  the  Truth 
vhich  we  profefs,  might  be  brought  fome  way  under  Con- 
tempt, and  Its  Profeflbrs  reprefented  to  be  the  real  (tho* 
bafe)  Progeny  of  two  or  three  fcandalous  Men  in  Germany. 
But  it  feems  our  Opponents  can  never  diftinguilh  between 
the  Truth,  and  thofe  who  profefs  to  hold  it.  Did  thofe 
few  Anabaptifts  (thus  delcrib'dj  hold  and  maintain  Be- 
lievers to  be  the  (onlyj  proper  5ubjeds  of  Baptifm  ?  Why 
then  tbey  held  what  was  contain'd  in  Scripture  long 
enough  before  they  were  born  :  And  is  the  Truth  of  God, 
and  the  Dodrine  of  Chrift  the  worfe,  becaule  fuch  Men 
pretended  to  believe  it  ?  Were  the  Do(Strines  of  the  Gof- 
pel  the  Worfe,    becaufe    there  was  a  Judas  among  the 

.  ApoOies  ?  Does  not  Mr.  F.  know  it  is  one  of  the  Devi- 
ces of  Satan  to  bi  ing  Truth  under  Contempt,  by  corrupt- 
ing its  Profeflbrs  ?  And  why  will  our  Opponents  make 
life  of  thofe  Corruptions,  as  Arguments  againft  the  Truth 
itfdf  ?  In  a  Word,  what  Improvement  foever  our  Op- 
ponents may  think  proper  to  make  of  the  Corruptions  or 
/rr/^?/i7ri//«of  any  Men,  who  at  any  Time,  profefs'd 
E^ievers  to  be  the  proper  Subjects  of  Baptifm,  they  may 

hear 


(    107    ) 
hear  it  once  more  told  them,  that  this  is  a  Truth  which 
JJj'tnes  wiih  unbeclouded  Brightnefs  throughout  the  whole 
NewTcHament,  far  above  their  mean  Arts  and  Devices 
ever  to  cclipfe  or  fubvert  whilft  rhe  E-rth  remaineth. 

After  Mr.  F.  has  labouj'd  to  wound  the  Charadler  of 
his  Opponents,  with  what  he  thought  proper,  then  he 
would  tain  footh  thern  up  acain,  yK\t\\\\\s  Compliments  i 
of  \i\^fincere  Regard,  and  highEjhem  of  Numbers  of  them, 
eff.  probably  weftiould  thmk  hi- i^^^a requite  as  fm cere, 
and  hi?  Efteem  every  way  as  hi^h,  irhe  had  not  mentioned 
a  Word  of  all  this,  as  now  we  do,  after  all  his  tree  (per- 
haps forc'd)  Confcffion  of  it  ;  un'cfs  the  e  were  greater 
Evidences  to  be  found  in  his  Writings,  of  his  Regard  and 
Efteem,  than   appear  to  be. 

Further,  Mr.  F.  makes  an  Apology  for  hisExpreffions  : 
Jj  he  hai  ufed  any  thai  may  feem  too  keen  and  fevere,  he 
ajjurts  us  juch  Turns  proceed  not  from  bitternefs  of  Spirit^ 
but  his  natural  Difpofuion  in  Difputation,  and  a  Studiouf^ 
nefs  of  Jetting  the  Argument  in  a  pong  Light.  We  have 
only  his  bare  Word  to  the  contrary  (and  that  is  no  good 
Proot  in  his  own  Cafe)  but  what  Bitternefs  of  Spirit  is 
his  natural  Difpofition  in  Difputation,  and  is  all  the  Steel 
that  fets  any  Edge  and  Keennefs  upon  his  otherwife  blunt 
Weapons  in  the  prefent  Engagement.  But  if  he  was 
confciuus  to  himfeif,  of  his  havmg  ufed  keen  Expreffions, 
which  weie  like  to  Prejudice  his  Opponents,  methinks  it 
would  have  been  prudent  for  him  to  foften  them,  or  elfe 
omitted  this  ujelefs  Apology. 

Havmg  gone  through  with  what  he  thought  proper  to 
©bferve,    he  comes  now  to  his  Conclufion,  and  tells  us, 

*  Tho'  I  do  not  efteem  the  dem  ing  Baptifm  to  Infants  a 
<  damnable    Eiror,    nor    the    Contrary    a    Foundation 

*  Truth,  yet  I  cannot  but  efteem  it  a  Truth  of  fuch  Im- 

*  portance,  as  is  worthy  to  be  contended  for.'  Anf.  *Ti& 
but  three  or  four  Years  ago,  that  there  was  a  mighty 
Koife  of  Perfons  \it\ngearnai\i  they  contended  about  thofc 
©utward  Things. 

But  It  feems  the  Times  are  changed,  and  our  Oppo- 
nents are  changed  in  them.  We  always  look'd  upon  the 
Dwarine  of  Believers  Baptifm  to  be  an  Important  Truths 

and 


(  io8  ) 
and  have  therefore  in  proper  Times  and  Places  contended 
for  it,  againft  the  Abute  and  Corruptions  of  our  Oppo- 
nents. Mr.  F.  f.iys,  fVijat  greatens  our  Error,  is  our 
denying  Abraham'^  Covenant  to  have  been  the  Covenant  of 
Grace.  Anf.  Wc  do  ftill  flatly  deny  the  Covenant  of 
Grace  to  be  made  with  Ahraham  on  Be  ha  lf  of  h.mfelf, 
a!id  ALL  HIS  Seed,  l^c,  and  continue  to  fay  the  Cove-, 
nant  of  Grace  was  made  wiih  Chrift  onlv,  as  a  publick 
Pei  foil,  and  in  him  with  all  the  Ele^  as  his  Sad. 

And  further,  that  the  Covenant  of  Grace  was  reveaTd 
to  Adam  foon  after  he  fell,  and  fo  down  to  Abraharn^ 
David,  i^c,  under  the  former  legal,  typical,  and  dark  f^if- 
penfation,  till  Chrift  came  in  the  Flelh,  with  whom  the 
Covenant  was  mide,  who  built  his  New  Teftament 
vifible  Church  of  Beliiving  fews  and  GentileSy  and  none 
clfe  that  we  can  find  :  And  hereby  we  preferve  the  Har- 
mony and  Connedfion  between  the  Old  .nd  New  Telta- 
ment  entire,  notwithftanding  Mr.  Fs  falf?  and  flanderous 
Infinuation  to  the  Contrary.  In  the  mean  Time,  I  put 
him  upon  the  Proof  to  cite  one  fingle  Paflaje  of  the  Old 
Teftament  that  we  repeal,  which  God  has  nottepe^l'd  : 
And  if  he  cannot  do  this,  as  I  know  he  cannot,  let  him 
recal  his  falfe  Aflertion,  ^  and  take  heed  for  the  future, 
what  Charges  he  brings  againft  us. 

Again,  li  we  do  diminijh  from  the  TVord  of  Gad,  as  Mr. 
F.  fuggefts,  'tis  very  unaccountable  how  he  could  in  a 
Page  or  two  before  exprefs  his  Gladnefs,  becaufe  of  our 
Agreement  with  him  in  tXy^  great  Ejfentials  of  Religion. 
What  ?  an  Agreement  with  fuch  People  as  he  reprefents 
|is  to  be  ?  Does  he  reckon  the  Ejfentiah  of  Religion  to 
be  entire,  tho*  a  very  great  Part  of  God'?  Word  be  re- 
peal'd,  which  he  hath  not  repeal'd  ?  Strange  Religion  ! 
Strange  Agreement  \  or  elfe  a  very  ftrange  and  falfs 
Reprcfentation  of  his  Brethren  ! 

I  wifti  Mr.  F.  could  exprefs  his  Love  and  Regard  to  us 
more  confiftent  with  himfelf.  If  we  agree  with  him  in 
the  Effentials  of  Religion,  then  we  do  not  repeal  a  very 
l^reat  Part  of  God's  Word,  which  he  has  not  repealed, 
^nd  thereby  diminifh  from  it,  unlefs  he^does  fo.    Neither 

cjin  (his  Charge  be  ever  provea  againft  (tf>  uaUis  Mr.  F. 


(     109    ) 

will  acknowledge  that  he  has  told  a  poritive  tjntruth  in 
Print  i  or  clfe  lay  that  he  can  ii;i,rcc  iii  Ljfentials  with 
thofe,  whodiminifli  from  the  VVotd  of  God  ;  "which  if 
he  does,  we  w:li  at  the  tiifl  Notice  profefs  our  Diffent 
fiom  him  in  this  Cafe. 

Says  he,    *  They  account  Believers  Infants  Common 

*  and  Unclean,  as  the  Infants  of  Turks  and  Pagans* 
4nf'  The  Rcverfe  ot  this  is  of  mighty  Force  to  vjin  upon 
People  who  are  generally  and  miturally/iff^  of  their  ChiU 
drcn,  and  rtady  enough  to  think  their  own  Geefe,  Swans. 
The  Carnal  Jews  of  old,  were  pufPd  up  with  the  Noti- 
m  of  their  being  the  Seed  of  Abraham^  John  viii.  33,  37, 
39.  And  thefe  are  the  Steps  our  Opponents  would  lead 
their  People  in,  to  think  that  their  Infant  Seed  arc  Tome 
how  better  than  others.  But  the  Scriptures  aflure  us, 
there  is  no  real  Difference  betwixt  the  Seed, of  Believers, 
and  Unbelievers,  Rom.'m.  9.  Eph.  ii.  3.  And  as  to 
any  other  Difference,  oi  Ceremonial^  Typical,  or  Foederal 
Holinefs,  theNew  Teftament  Difpenfacton  acknowledg- 
es none  ;  and  'tis  but  begging  the  Queftion,  to  fay,  that 
God  accounts  them  holy.  '  They  deny  (fays  he)  that  any 
'  Infants  vifibly  belong  to  God,    by  carting  them  out  of 

his  Church,  and  denying  them  to  have  any  Part  in  his 

*  Covenant,  and  fo  do  confign  them  over  to  Satan* 
Anf.  What  a  flrange  Heap  of  Stuff  is  here  thrown  up  to- 
gether ;  if  by  any  Means  we  may  be  pair.ted  black,  and 
deformed  to  the  Eyes  of  the  World  ?  But,  I.  VVherc 
has  Mr.  F.  fhewn  that  Believers  Infants  were  ever  in  the 
New  Teftament  Church  ?  'Tis  idle  Talk  to  fay  that  we 
Cdft  them  out  of  the  Church,  when  none  has  fhewn,  and 
I  prefume,  never  can  fliew,    that  they  were  in  it. 

2.  Our  Opponents  do  own  there  is  no  a<5iual  being  in 
the  Covenant  of  Grace,  but  by  EleSfion  on  Goa's  Part, 
and  Faith  on  Man's  Part  §  :  And  M'e  deny  Infants  to 
hive  any  Part  in  the  Covenant  of  Grace,  no  otherwif* 
than  as  they  have  not  confented  to  the  Order  of  the  Gofpel, 
in  an  unreferved  faving  Clofure  with  Jefus  Chriff,  where- 
by Perfons  are  aSlually  and  vifiUy  interefled  m  the  Cove- 
nant of  Grace. 

3.  Wc 

§  Coaf  deration  of  the  Quertfts.  p.  3«« 


(    no    ) 

3.  We  do  not  cinfign  Infants  over  to  Sa^an,  any  other- 
Wavs  than  declaring  what  ihe  Scriptuic  faxsuf  thtin,  vi%. 
Thdt  thev  are  all  imiier  Sin,  ai.d  b.  N.tine  (  hildren  of 
Wrath  ;   ignorant  of  G  d  ;    %  del^it'iit  of «  ririnal  Righ- 
teoufnefs  i  having  their  Naiuit  ^ho\U  corrupted,  where- 
by they  are  utterly  indifpu^'d,  uif^t.led,    and  become  op- 
pofite  unto  all  th  t  is  fpititu-'lly  good  -,  and  wholU  mcl  n'd 
to  all  h-vil.     And  for  Mr,  F.  to  take  fuch  and  aun»in:i>er 
Baptifm  to  thtm,    is  to  have  under   his  Hai.ds  a  vilihle 
improper    Subjcd  of  this    3o(pel    Ordir)incc.      Kiirr'er 
Mr.  F.  favs,    '  Out  of  the  Covenant  there  is  noSaKnti- 
*  on.'     We  underftand  he  mea^s  :he  Covenant    (m;.de 
with  Abraham)  which  he  io  oiten   nientjons,    of  w  Inch 
Circumcifion  was  a  Token  :  Ir  fo,  it  isfalfc  ;  for  Godly 
Perfons  were  faved,    tho'    thev  wet*  nut   in    .ihraharni 
Covenant,  as  I  have  (hewn  already  ;     or   elfe  what  be- 
came of  righteous    Lot,    and   otheis  ?      What  is  Mr.  f. 
driving  at  here,  but  to  fet  fo-^rh  a  new  E-  i'ion  of  »he  old 
Story,  viz.     Out  of   the   Church  there  is  no  .Sajvirion. 
Befidcs  what  a   Limiting  of  the  Hol\   One  ot   I/me  I  is 
here?  according  to  him,   the  Ciiildun  ol  Nt>t.-mtnibers 
are  out  of  the  Covenant  (without  the  Pales  of  the  viliole 
Church)    and  therefore  if  (iie\  die  m  their  Infancy  they 
camat    be    faved.      His  Perfonnance   rdecd  bears  ihc  fair 
and   promiftng    Title  of  a  Chariiabl''  Pita  for  the  Spfech- 
lefs  j  but  IS  there  no  Charity,    for  tf-c  pooi  little  Speech- 
lefs  Ones  of  Non-memoers,     dviiig  in   their    ln*iinc\  ? 
No,    according  to  Mr.  F.     tor  they  are  our  ot  Ahiaharns 
Covenant,     and    therefore     excluded     frcm    Salvation. 
Hard  Cafe  !    Yea,     truly  hard  !    That   the  Sin  of  .heir 
Parents  in  Negitding  to  join  them'elves  to  the  Churc' , 
(hould  put  their  Infant   Seed  (o  la:    off,     that    the  f.ivi   g 
Benefits  ot  Chrift's  Blood  cannot  reach  them.       I  his  is  ttie 
Gentleman  that   is  pleas'd   to  charge  us  with  Consigning 
Infants  over  to  the  Devil.      Let  all  Mt-n  jud,e  bet    ixt  u.s, 
wheiher   our  Opponents  or  we  are  guiltv  of  tlie  greatell 
Uncharitablenefs  and  Cruelty^   rcfpedting  Children.      They 
who  (according  to  this  Aflertion)  deny  the  HoiTibillty  of 
Salvation  to  the  Infants  ot  N on  members  (dying  in  their 

infancy) 

I  See  Afl'embly't  Larger  Citechifmi 


r  I"  ) 

Infancy)  or  we  who  only  deny  to  adminifter  Biiptifm  t« 
the  Infants  of  Church-members,  becaufe  God  hath  not 
commanded  it. 

*  Yea    (fays    Mr.   F.)    they  lay  dangerous  Grounds  to 

*  (derogate  from  Chrift  himfelf,   when  he  was  an  Infant  ; 

*  for  tho'  he  was  Head  of  the  Church,    yet  according  to 

*  their  Principles,  they  muft  have  deny'd  him  Member- 
'  (hip  in  it,  until  he  was  grown  up  ;  and  what  Abfur- 
'  dity  is  greater,     than   to  (\tny  the  Mafter  of  the  Houfct 

*  a  Right  to  be  in  it  ?*  Anf.  All  this  is  calculated  for 
the  Meridian  of  Falfhood.  Our  Opponents  write  as  if 
they  thought  their  Pens  fandtificd  the  moft  palpable  Un- 
truths in  the  World.  What  Grounds  do  we  lay  that 
have  any  fuch  Tendency,  as  this  Heap  of  Calumny  fug- 
gefts  ?  Mr.  F.  fays,  Baptifm  was  not  a  divine  Inftitu- 
tion,  when  Chrift  was  born  j  and  did  we  (according 
to  our  Principles)  ever  gainfay  in  the  leaft  that  the  Male 
Infants  of  Abraham  had  a  Right  to  Circumcifion  I  Let 
Mr.  F.  mention  any  of  ihefe  dangerous  Grounds^  if  he 
can  ;  or  elfe  retradt  this  bafe  and  flanderous  A^ertion. 
Seeing  Baptifm  was  not  inftituted  when  Chrift  was  boriiy 
how  is  it  poffible  that  our  Denying  Infant- baptifm, 
fhould  affe£t  the  Cafe  of  Chrift,  before  the  Ordinance  of 
Baptifm  was  inftituted  ?  There  is  no  Colour  of  Reafon 
to  fupport  this  Infinuation,  not  at  all. 

*  They  arc  moreover    (fays  he^  ''riven,    in  Defence 

*  of  therr  Principles,  to  wreft  many  precious  Scriptures, 

*  and  put  uncouth  and  unreafonable  GlofTes  upon  them, 

*  to  fuit  their  Judgment.'  1  his  I  deny.  And  'ti« 
no  Ways  probable  it  (hould  be  true  ;  when  the  Do£lrine 
of  Baptifm,  which  we  contend  for  and  maintain,  is  fup- 
ported  bv  all  thofe  Places  which  fpeak  of  the  Ordinance  ; 
and  that  of  Baptizing  Inf  nts  h?th  not  one  fmglc  Com- 
mand, Example,  or  Inftance,  to  fupport  it,  in  the 
whole  Scripture.  Let  all  Men^W^^,  if  there  is  any  Pro- 
bability we  Ihould  be  neceffitated  to  wrejl  Scriptures  in 
Defence  of  our  Principles,  which  are  no  other  than  that 
Bf-lievers  are  the  proper  Subjects  of  Baptifm.  And  fur- 
ther, let  them  judge  aJfo,  whether  it  is  not  probable, 
Uut  our  Oppoueucs  u^farc'd  \m  Wi«A  Scripture  in  De* 

fence 


(      112      ) 

fence  of  Infant-baptlfm,    when  there  are  no  Inftances  of 
it  in  the  Word  of  God  ? 

Wc  come  now  to  the  Clofe  of  Mr.  Flnlcy's  firft  Part 
of  h\?-  Performance^  where  lie  conchides,  hoping  what  is 
/aid  may  fuffice,  as  to  the  Subjects  o{ Baptifm.  If 
thro'  the  whole  he  had  brought  atj\'  Command  or  Example 
for  Infant- b.iptifm,  much  lefs  IVrlting  would  have  been 
fufficlent  \  but  feeinp:  he  has  not,  he  is  defircd  to  obferve, 
that  were  he  to  fav  as  much  more^  and  double  to  tbat^  '\\ 
would  be  all  inf efficient  to  warrant  the  Pra6tico  o{  Ba^ti' 
jLing  Infants,  or  prove  it  to  be  the  Infiitution  of  our 
Lord  and  exalted  Saviour  Jesus  Christ. 


^ii>  -^^  ^^  -^  -^9  ^-^  -m 


THE 


(    113    ) 


THE 

MODE  ofBAPTIS 

By 

IMMERSION 

VINDICATED. 


E  T    US  now  proceed  to  wait  on  Mr.  JTinley  ia 

what  he  hath  to  fay  about  the  Mode  of  Bapufm. 

His  Second  general  Aflertion  is,  *  That  Bap- 

*  tifm  is  rightly  adminiftrcd  by  fprinkling  or 

*  pouring  Water  on  the  Perfon  baptized.* 

The  firft  Particular^  which  is  improved  by  him  in 
Vindication  of  this  Aflertion,    is  as  follows,    '  There  is 

*  nothing  in  the  Word  of  God  contradictory  to  it  ;    or> 

*  in  other  Words,    that  the  Anabaptifts  Arguments  a« 

*  gainft  it,    do  not  overthrow  it. 

It  feems  iWr.  F.  cannot  bear  to  think  our  very  Jmall 
Community  (as  he  is  pleas'd  to  call  it)  to  be  in  the  Rights 
refpedling  the  Mode  of  Baptifm.  Certainly  he  might 
have  known  by  divers  Inftances,  thzt  Jmall  Commun  ties 
have  had  the  Truth  on  their  Side  before  now,  when  the 
Crowds  and  Multitude,  embraced  Error.  To  a  coniide- 
rate  judicious  Perfon  (methinks)  there  appears  *he  great- 
er Probability  we  are  in  the  Right  ;  when  onv  fmall  Com- 
munity  ihould  be  able  io  Jiem  the  ftrong  Current  of  gene- 

H  «l 


(     114     ) 

fal  Reproaches,  Scoffings,  and  whatever  other  Sluices 
Men  have  thought  proper  to  open  againft  us,  to  make  the 
fwelling  Stream  more  violent  and  rapid.  Can  any  one 
think  why  we  (hould  differ  from  the  -Multitude  in  our 
Praof'tce^  but  becaufe  our  Confciences  are  influenc'd  with 
the  plain  Declarations  of  God's  Will,  and  Scripture  Ex- 
amples, in  this  Cafe.  However,  till  we  fee  otherwifc, 
we  think  it  better  to  be  of  the  Number  oi  th'xs  Jmall  Com- 
munity^ and  have  Truth  at, our  Side,  than  to  dwell  in  a 
large  Houfe  with  ill-naturd  Error  m  our  Arms. 

And  why  {hould  Mr.  R  be  fo  much  difplcas'd  with 
our  Practice  ?  If  it  be  the  Truth  which  we  hold,  and  if 
it  is  by  pradlifing  it,  zue  unchurch  all  the  Prote/lant 
World,  he  can  do  no  lefs  (methinks)  than  acknowledge, 
there  is  no  Matter  how  foon  the  Protejiant  World  is  un- 
church'd,  that  they  may  be  church'd  according  to  Truth 
and  Gofpel-Order.  But  if  we  arc  in  an  Error  in  this 
Point  fas  he  fuggefts)  'tis  not  poflible  that  we  (hould 
unchurch  the  Protejiant  World,  unlefs  they  unchurch 
themfclves  by  embracing  our  Principles.  Let  Mr.  F. 
take  it  which  Way  he  will,  the  mighty  Blow  he  intend-^ 
ed  to  give  us,  very  happily  _/7//)j  by,  without  doing  any 
Execution. 

He  fums  up  what  (as  he  fays)  we  advance  in  favour  of 
Dipping,  under  three  Heads,  uiz.  I.  The  Etymology  of 
the  Word  Baptifm.  2.  Scripture  Examples.  3.  Scrip- 
ture AUufions.  All  thefe  Particulars  afford  us  good  Ar- 
guments for  what  we  pradife,  as  may  appear  in  proper 
Place. 

'  Now  ('fays  he)  if  we  can  prove  that  BaMizo  does  any 

*  where  fignify  to  pour  or  fprinkle,    then  we  raze  the 

*  very  Foundartion  of  the  Jnabapti/ls  Argument  :    For 

*  what  can  be  plainer  ?     if  Baptizo   does  at  all  fignify  to 

*  pour  or  fprinkle,  then  it  does  not  only  and  always  fig- 

*  nify  Dipping,  and  confequently  our  Opponents  can  get 

*  no  certain  and  infallible  Argument  from  the  Aleaning 

*  of  the  Word.'  JnJ.  'Tis  a  very  bad  Weapon  to  go 
to  War  with,  which  will  certainly  deftroy  him  that 
handles  it  inftead  of  the  Enemy.  Unlefs  Mr.  F.  could 
make  appear  that  Baptis^e  always  figniiies  to  pour  or 

fprinkle. 


C     "5     ) 

fprinkle,  we  fhall  raze  the  very  Foundation  of  his  Aro-u- 
inent     (or  Principle)     too  ;     which  is,     That  Baptifnt  \% 
rightly   adminiftred    by  Pouring  or   Sprinkling  ;  for  let 
him    once  grant    (as  he  does    here)    that  Baptizo  does 
fometimes  fignify  to  dip,    he   can  get  no  certain  and  in- 
fallible Argument    from   the  Meaning   of  the   Word  in 
Favour  of  his  Opinion  and  Proxies.     So  that  upon  the  ve- 
ry firft   Onfet,     we    ftand   upon  z  Par  with  him  in  this 
Point  ;     and  confequently  our   Mode  muft  be  right,  ac- 
cording to  his  own  Way  of  Reafoning  j  How  then  could 
he  give  himfelf  the  Liberty  to  ridicule  it  in  the  following 
Pagesy  in  the  Manner  he  has  done  ?     But  when  we  com? 
to  the  Pu/hy  Mr.  F.  fails  in  the  Undertaking  j    for  he  has 
not  cited  us  one  Inftance  from  Lexieo-graphers^  where  the 
Word  is  rendred  by  per/undo,  ^fpergo,    to  pour  or  fprin- 
Jcle,    not  at  all  j    but  labours  to  fupply  his  wide  Defe(5i 
with  his  AfTertion,  that  Pouring  or  Sprinkling  are  as  reallj/ 
Modes  of  Wafhing,    as  Dipping  or  Plunging  ;    then  his 
Confequence  muft  be.  Therefore  Baptizo  fignifi'es  to  pour 
or  fprinkle  ;  whioh  is  very  weak  and  falfe  :  For  had  the 
Word  carry'd    fuch  a   Meaning    in  it^    thofe  approv'd 
Majiers  of  the  Greek  Tongue,    which  Mr.  F.  mentions, 
would  have  render'd  it  fo.     He  can't  but  know  that  there 
is  a  great  Difference  between  the  proper  Signification  of  a 
Word,    and  a  j^rfV  Confequence.     Will   Mr.   F.   pre- 
tend to  perfuade  the  World,  that  Words  have  no  propec 
determinate  Ideas  affix'd  to  them  ?     I  can't  help  think- 
ing,  the  Reafon  why  he  would  have  the  Meaning  of  thia 
Word  to  be  fo  uncertain^  is,  that  he  might  crowd  in  fome 
Pretence  for  his  Pradice  :    But  his  Device  will  not  help" 
him,    becaufe  the  Word   is  never   render'd  to  pour  or 
fprinkle  j  as  the  learned  *  Dr.  Gale  informs  us  : 

'  I  have  carefully  obferved  it  (i.  e.  the  Word  Baptize) 
a  confiderablc  Time,  as  it  occur'd  in  Reading,  and  af- 
fure  you  I  never  found  it  once  us'd  to  fignify  to  pour  or 
fprinkle,  or  any  Thing  lefs  than  Dipping  ;  and  I  ma/ 
challcjige  any  Man  to  (hew  a  fingle  Inftance  of  it,  ex- 
cept in  fome  Ecclefiajtical  Writers  of  the  latter  corrupt 
Times,  who  retaining  the  Words  of  the  Inflitution^ 
H  2  *  an^^ 

i  ictter  34,  Page  94, 


(     ii6    ) 

*  and  altering  the  Tljing,    do  in  this  Cafe  indeed,  but  no 

*  other,  extend  the  Word  into  a  wider  Senfe  ;   but  Pro- 

*  phane  Authors,    viho  lay  under  no  fuch  Byesy    have 

*  made  no  fuch  Alteration.     'Tis  evident  from   them, 

*  the  primary  Meaning  is  fimply  to  dip^    not  only  into 
«  Water,  but  any  Matter.' 

'Tis  a  very  improper,  and  indeed  a  falfe  Way  to  feck 
for  the  Senfe  and  Meaning  of  the  Word  Baptizo,  from 
the  Dfe,  or  rather  Abufe  of  it,  in  corrupt  Times.  It 
jnay  be  juft  obferv'd,  what  an  unwarrantable  Length  Dr. 
Featley  fwho  is  quoted  by  Mr,  Leigh  in  his  Critica  Sacra) 
had  got  to,  in  his  Warmth  againfr  the  Anabaptifts  ; 
when  he  affirms  (which  is  alfo  taken  up  by  Mr.  F.  as  one 
of  his  Authorities)  that  Baptlzo  imports  no  more  than  Ab- 
lution or  Wafhing,  which  may  be  done  without  dipping. 
Which  Aflertion,  as  it  is  not  true  in  itfelf,  fo  neither 
does  it  asree  with  what  is  acknowledged  in  the  Crittca 
Sacra  juft  before,    viz.    *  That  Baptizo  is  derived  from 

*  Bapto,  tingo,  to  dip  or  plunge  into  the  Water,  and  fignifi- 
«  eth  primarily   fuch  a  Kind  of  Wafhing  as  is  ufed   in 

*  Bucks,  where  Linnen  h  plu77g'dand  dip^a.'  It  was  there- 
fore very  wfelefs  for  Mr.  F.  to  repeat  this  Jdle  Story  over 
again.  That  Baptizo  imports  no  more  than  Ablutioity  or 
JVaJhing  ;  when  it  is  confefs'd  that  it  fignifies  primarily 
fuch  a  Kind  of  Wafhing,  as  is  by  Dipping  or  Plunging  ;  e- 
fpecially  confidering  what  is  further  faid  by  Mr.  Leigh  in 
his  Critica  Sacra,  fo  pertinent  and  full  to  our  Purpofe, 
viz.  *  That  the  native  and  proper  Signification  of  it  (;.  e. 
*■  Baptizo)  is  to  dip  into  Water,    or  to  pluvgt  under  Wa- 

*  ter,  John  iii.  22,  23.  Mat.  iii.  16.  jI^s  viii.  38.' 
This  further  ferves  to  quit  us  of  the  Tafk  Mr.  F.  would 
3ay  upon  us,  viz.  toJ})ew  that  the  Word  never  fignifies  any 
ether  thing  but  Dipping  or  Plunging :  No,  nothing  elfe,  na- 
tively and  properly.  The  Obfervations  of  the  Rev.  and 
Xearned  Mr.  Gill  *  deferve  Place  here,    '  How   we  are 

*  like  to  come  off  with  theW^ord  Baptize;  and  here 
«  our  Author  m  />.  41.  tells  us,  orerctundo,  and  with 
^  Confidence  enough  in  fo  many  Words,    that   it  never 

*  doesfignify  Plunging  ;     IVaJhing  with  IVater,  by  Pouring 

*  fir  Sprinkling,  is  the  only  Meaning  of  it.     The  Man  has 

•  Autient  Mod*  of  B«ptiziDg,  p.  6a,  ,    %P^ 


4 


« 


(     "7    ) 

got  a  good  AfTurance  ;  but  yet  by  his  Writing,  he  doe$ 
not  r^em  to  have  fuch  a  Stock  of  Learning  j  howeverj, 
what  he  wants  in  one,  he  makes  up  in  the  other. 
Tis  ftrange  that  all  our  Lexico- graph ers^  fo  many  learn- 
ed Criticks,  and  good  Divines,  fhould  be  fo  much 
miftaken,  as  to  render  the  Word,  to  dip  ox  plunge,  and 
allow  this  to  be  the  proper  Signification  of  it.  I  have 
my  felf  confuked  feveral  Lexicons,  as  thole  of  SuidaSy 
Scapula,  Hadrian,  Junius,  Pafor,  as  alfo  another  made 
by  Budaus,  Tufanus,  Gej'ner,  Junius,  Conjiantiney 
Hartung,  Hopper  and  Xylander,  who  all  unanimoufly 
render  the  Word  by  Mergo,  immergo,  to  plunge  or  dip 
into  :  And  tho'  they  afterv/ards  add  alfo,  Abluo,  lavo^ 
to  wajh,  yet  'tis  plain  they  mean  fuch  a  Wailiing,  as  is 
by  Dipping  ;  and  we  are  very  willing  to  grant  it  ;  for 
we  know  that  there  can  be  no  Dipping,  without  Walh- 
ing  :  But  had  they  meant  a  Wafhing  by  Pouring  or 
Sprinkling,  they  would  have  rendered  it  \iy  perfundo,  or 
ajpergo,  to  pour  upon,  ox  fprinkic  ;  but  this  they  never 
do.  And,  to  thefe  I  might  add  a  large  Number  of 
learned  Criticks,  and  good  Divines,  who  grant,  that 
the  Word  in  its  firft  and  primary  Senfe,  fignifies  to  dip 
ox  plunge  only,  and  to  tf/T/J  only  in  a  fecondary,  re- 
mote, and  confequential  One  ;  as  [a]  Cafaubony 
Camerarius,  Grotius  [^]  Calvin  [f]  jilting  [d}  Aljle4 
\_e\  Wendelin,  and  others--  But  v\hat  need  I  heap  up 
Authors  to  prove  that  whick  no  Man  of  any  tolerable 
Learning  will  deny  ;  But  what  will  not  Ignorance,  at- 
tended with  a  confiderable  Share  of  Confidence,  carry 
a  Man  thro'  ?' 
The  Reverend  Aflembly  of  Divines,  fays  the  worthy 
Mr.  Rees  *  *  Tho'  they  ha'.'e  warily  defin'd  Baptifm  in 
'  general,  to  be  Wajhing  with  Water,  in  the  Catechifm, 

*  yet  they  don't  fcruple  to  acknowledge  that  thatWaftiing 

*  was  by  Dipping  in  the  primitive  Tirnes.     This   is  evi- 

*  dent   to  any  one  who  will  perufe  their   Annotations.* 
And  fo  it  is  in  their  own  Words  (on  Matt,  iii.  6.  were 

H  3  bap- 

[o]  All  three  on  Mat.  iii.  6.     [*]  Inftitut,  L.  4.  C  15.  Seft.  ig.     [cj 

Loc.  Commun.  p.  198,    and  Explic.  Catech,  p.  311,  [^]  Lexic.  Theolog; 

p.  a2i,  222.    [f]  Chrift.  Thi6»log.  I«,  I,  C|  22.  *  Aftimad,  oa  a  l?i(? 
^ouift  of  iaf.  f  »f  ;•  f .  %^%, 


r  "8  ) 

baptized)  they  fay,  '  Wa{he(^,  by  Dipping  in  'Jordan* 
And  if  (when  they  were  obhg'd  by  folemn  Vow  before 
God,  as  Mr.  F.  ftgnifies,  to  declare  fincerely  their  Judg- 
ments) they  did  explain  Baptifm  to  be  IVaJhing  with 
Water  j  there  is  no  Reafon  to  queftion  but  they  did  un- 
der the  like  Obligation,  and  with  the  fame  Sincerity  de- 
clare, that  this  Wafhing  was  by  Dipping  in  the  primitive 
Times,  as  in  the  Inftance  before  me,  which  is*  full 
to  our  Purpofe  ;  for  our  Enquiry  is  not  what 
they  believed  might  do  in  their  Time,  but  what 
they  fay  of  the  Adminiftration  of  Baptifm  in  the 
primitive  Times,  which  they  allow  was  by  Dipping  ; 
certainly  the  Praftice  of  'John  in  Dipping  the  Multitudes 
in  Jordan^  is  good  Argument  in  our  Favour.  It  like- 
wife  appears,  the  Aflembly  cf  Divines  underftood  the 
Word  Bapiizo^  fignifies  Dipping  ;  or  elfe  how  fhould  they 
fay  of  thofe  who  were  baptized  by  Jjihn,  that  they  were 
wajhed  by  Dipping  in  Jordan  ?  Hence  it  appears  their  Au- 
thority does  Mr.  Fs  Caufe  no  great  Service. 

What  Mr.  F.  quotes  from  that  very  worthy  Divino 
Dr.  Owen,  he  (after  his  ufual  Manner)  does  not  tell  us 
from  what  Part  of  the  Reverend  Doctor's  Works  he  takes 
his  Citations  ;  (a  Fault  all  through  his  Performance, 
which  he  is  defired  to  amend  when  he  writes  again)  But 
by  what  Information  I  can  get,  they  are  taken  out  of  his 
fojlhumous  Works  ;  which  brings  to  my  Mind  a  certain 
Paflage   Mr.   Wall  %   ^as  to  this  Purpofe  :     *  I  know 

*  (fays  he)    that  many  learned  Men  have  fuffered    much 

*  in  their  Memory,  by  having  all  their  Letters  zx\dipoJ}hu- 

*  mous  Pieces  printed  after  their  Death  ;    fome  whereof 

*  were  fuch,  as  being  written  in  their  Youth,  they  them- 

*  felves  would  have  been  afhamed  of  afterwards;  and  would 

*  upon  better  Information  and  Reading,  have  recanted. 
Very  agreeable  herewith,  are  the  Words  of  Mr.  Rees  j  § 

*  I  am  of  Opinion,  that  if  his  Friends  had  fludied  how  to 
'  make  him  (/.  e.  Dr. Owen)  look  little,  they  could  not  have 

*  found  a  more  effedtual  Way,  than   by  publifhing  thefe 

*  Remarks  upon  Dipping  ;    for  either  what  is  advanc'd  in 

*  them  cannot  be  made  good,  or  mufl  appear  to  be  a  fair 

*  Conceffioa 

%  Hift.  of  Inf,  Bapt.  psg,  Z74,       \  Aaimni,  ?»£.  1^4' 


(  119  ) 
Conceflion  of  all  that  the  Bapiijls  can  wifl)  for,  or 
want,  w'z.  That  the  original  Signification  of  the  Word 
Bapti%Oy  imports  to  dip.  And  concluding,  That  no 
honeft  Man  who  underftands  the  Greek  Tongue,  caa 
deny  the  Word  to  fignify  to  wafh  as  well  as  to  dip. 
'  I  never  me:  with  a  BaptiJI,  who  underflood  any 
Thing  of  the  Matter,  that  ever  deny'd  this.  It  does 
figyiify  to  wafh,  but  'tis  by  Confequence  ;  and  'tis  im- 
poflible  to  dip  in  fair  Water  without  waftiing.  It  ne- 
ceflarily  implies  and  comprehends  that,  in  the  Nature 
of  the  Action,  when  'tis  perform'd  in  Water  ;  but  it 
never  fignifies  to  \vz{hftmply,  without  having  Regard 
to  dipping  :  Nay  it  fignifies  to  dip  into  any  Matter 
abfolutely,  without  regarding  Water,  or  any  other 
Liquid,  t  And  the  Reverend  Dr.  Oiven  has  not  offered' 
to  affert,  that  the  Word  in  its  native  Signification  im- 
ports to  fprinkle  or  pour.  Had  he  found  any  good  Au- 
thors, who  render  Baptizo  by  afpergo.,  affundo.,  or 
perfundo,  this  would  have  been  fopev.hat  to  the  Fur- 
pofe.  Coming  fhort  of  this,  is  doing  of  nothing  ;  for 
this  is  what  the  Pcedo-baptijis  muft  prove,  tojuflify 
their  own  Practice,  or  elfe  what  they  call  Baptifm,  is 
not  perform'd  according  to  the  genuine  Signification  of 
the  Word  Baptizo.,  themfelves  being  Judges.' 
Mr.  F.  proceeds  to  obferve  the  Ufe  of  the  Word  in 
the  New  Teftament,  and  cites  Mark  vii.  4.  Ji^d  when, 
they  com?  from  the  Market^   except  they  wajh^   they  eat  not, 

*  In  the  Greek  can   me  baptijontai.,    except   they  he  bap~ 

*  //z^i.-"It  is  here  plain  that  Baptifm  in  Verf?  4.  is  de- 
y  fign'd   to  exprefs    the   fame   as  Nipfontai  in  Verfe   3  \ 

*  which  laft  none  denies  to  fignify  JVaJhing. 

In  Anfwer  to  which,  take   what  Be7.a  obferves  upon 
this  Text  ;     '  Baptizesthai,  ip  this  Place,    is  more  than 

*  Cherniptein  ;  for  the  former  feems  to  refpt6l  the  whole 

*  Body,  the  latter  only  the  Hands.  Nor  does  Baptixein  fig- 

*  nify  to  wajb-t  but  only  by  Confequence  ;   for  it  properly 

*  denotes  to  immerfe  for  the  fake  of  Dipping.*  Hence  i^ 
appears,  Mr.  i^'s  Conclufion  is  very  falfe  and  unjuft^ 
which  he  infers  from  this  Text,  viz.   That  to  baptize  sj 

H  4  ?art 

*■       •*•    Yid.  Dr.  CaU,  Letter  34, 


(  rii  ) 
Par*-  of  the  ^ody,  is  true  Scripture  Baptifm,  according  to 
tie  \4e ma,  ut  rl^e  Wcid  B^piiz-  :  For  the  Text  does 
rot  fiv  tliat  tile  /^zff  were  bapti'ed  when  tlieir  Hands 
were  Wuihed  ;  or  the  wafb'irt^  of  Hands  is  not  here  called 
hapt.xi-ng  thetn  :  But  whe-i  their  whoii  Body  was  waihed 
(as  Bc'z.a  oh^erve.c)  agieeable  to  the  Signification  of  the 
■^'V  ,rd  (Bapiijontai)  bere  ufcd,  which  as  Mr.  Z.f/'g/j  te» 
fti.T'S,   '   'mulie  h  thejfajhing  of  rheir  who/e  Body.' 

*  ris  nor  impioper  xo  add  what  Mr.  Gill  f  favs  on  thefc 
Words,  And  when  they  come  from  the  Market^  except 
th^y  wafi)^   they  eat  mt^   *  which  may  be  underftood  either 

*  1.   Of  fhe  Things    they  bought  in   the  Market,  which 

*  thev  di'i  not  rat,   until  tliev  were  wafhed.     Thus   tha 

*  Syriac  Verfion  reads  tie  Words  ;    and  what  thev   buy 

*  in  the  Market,  unlef^  it  be  wafhed,  they  eat  not/  The 

*  hme  Way  re.id    all  the  Oriental  Verfions,   the  Arah'iCy 

*  Ethopic^  and  Perftc.      Now  this  muft  be  underftood  of 

*  thf)<e  T'hin'^s  that  may  be,  and  are  proper  to  be  wafiied, 

*  as  Herb.s,  bV.     And  no  Bodv  wijl  queftion  but  that  the 

*  Manner  of  the  Wafliing  thefe,    was   by   putting  them 

*  into   Wjier,  But 

*  2.    If  the  Words  defign  the  Wafliing  of  Perfons,  they 

*  mufl  be  undeiftood  either  of  the  Wafli  ng  of  their  whole 
'   Bodies,  or  elfe  of  fome   Part  only,    as   their  Hands  or 

*  Feet  :     It  fecms  molt  hkcly,   that  the  Wafhing  of    the 

*  whole  B.:>dy  :s  intended,   as  Grotius^    Vatablus^  Drufiui^ 

*  and  others  think,   becaufe  wafhing  of  Hands  is  menti- 

*  oned  in    the   preceding  V^x\q.      Befides,   to  undeifland 

*  it  thus,   better  expreijes  the  outward,   afFcdtd  Saniftity 

*  of  the  more   fuperftitious  Part  of  tbe  People.      All  the 
'   'Jewi  wafhed  their  Hands  and  Feet  before  eating  :    But 

*  thoie  who  pretended    to  a  gieatcr  Degree  of  Holinefj, 

*  wafhed  their  whole  Bodies,    efpecially  when  they  came 

*  fiom  a  Market.      And   of   this    total  Ablution    of  the 
*:  Bod},  h  Lukexx.  1%.   to  be  underftood.     And  here  I 

*  can't  forbear  mennonin^^a  PafTage  of  the.  great  «Sc<?//^fr, 

*  to  this  Purpcfe.      The    m  >re   fuperftitious  Part  of  the 
f  Jews  (fays  he)    not  only  wafhed  their  Feet,     but  tbcir 

*  wiiole  Body.     Hence  ihey  were  calJed  Htmerobaptijiiy 

who 

i*  Defence  of  the  aatieat  Mode  of  Bap U»insi  pag.  y^ 


(       121      ) 

*  who  every  Day  wafhed  their  Bodies  before   they  fat 

*  down  to  Food  ;  wherefore  the  Pharifee  which  had  in- 
f  vited  Jefus   to  dine  with  him,      wondered  that  he   fat 

*  down  to  Meat  before   he  had  wafhed  his  whole  Body, 

*  Luke  xi.     But  ihofe  that  were  more  free  from  Superfti- 

*  tion,  were  contented  with  wafiiing  of  their  Feet,  inftead 

*  of  that  Univerfal  Immerfion.  Witnefs  the  Lord  him- 
«  felf,  who  being  entertained  at  Dinner  by  another  Pha- 
'  rifee,  objcaed  to  him,  when  he  was  fat  down  to  Meat, 
«  that  he  had  given  him  no  Water  for  his  Feet.'  Luke  7. 

In  a  Word,  we  further  learn  from  the  Teftim^nies  of 
thefe  great  Men,  how  falfe  and  inconclufive  Mr.  F^  Rea- 
fonings  be,  '  That  if  the  Jews  were  baptized  when  only 
<  their  Hands  were  waihed,  then  to  baptize  a  Part  of  the 

*  Body  is  true  Scripture  Baptifm,'  Seeing  there  are 
different  Words  made  Ufe  of  in  Scripture,  whereby  the 
wafhing  of  Hands,  and  the  Immerfion  or  Ablution  of 
the  whole  Body  are  expreffed  :  And  alfo,  that  wafhing 
the  whole  Body  in  Water,  by  dipping  or  overwhelming 
(as  we  do)  is  true  Scripture  Baptifm,  according  to  the 
Iv^eaning  of  the  Word  (Baptize)  and  nothing  elfe. 

And  quite  as  inconclufive  is  that  which  Mr.  F.  ofFers 
from  the  Inflance  of  Chrift  waftiing  his  Difciples  Feet, 
John  xiii.  to  infer  from  thence,  that  it  Is  not  neceffary 
to  apply  the  Myftical  Water  of  Baptifm  favd  only  to  a 
Part  of  the  Body,  when  the  Word  Baptize  is  not  menti- 
oned there,  and  when  the  Cafes  have  no  Relation  tQ 
each  other,  is  manifeflly  weak  and  abfurd. 

If  our  Opponents  would  make  this  Inftance  ferve  their 
Turn,  they  fhould  have  fome  total  Wafliing  of  the  whole, 
Body  to  go  before  Baptifip,  that  they  may  be  found  to 
have  fome  Colour  for  their  Pradice,  anfwerable  to  the 
Text  ;  He  thiit  is  waflied,  needeth  not  fave  only  to  waih 
his  Feet. 

I  believe  none  will  think  this  PafTage  to  be  of  any  Ufe 
for  Information,  refpeaing  the  Mode  of  Baptizing  ;  un- 
lefs  they  be  fuch  who  are  pertinacioufly  refolved  to  conti- 
nue in  their  received  Pradice  of  Sprinkling  (Right  or 
Wrong)  and  are  willing  to  catch  at  any  Thing  (tho'  ever 
io  remote  and  infufHcient)  to  help  themfelves  with,  a  lit- 
^  tic 


f       122       ) 

tie  longer.  But  I  need  not  fpend  Time  about  fuch  tri- 
vial and  impertinent  Reafonings— When  the  P<Edo  bap- 
tifts  themfvrlves  conlefs,  that  the  native  and  proper  Sig- 
nification of  tlie  Word  is  to  dip  or  plunge^  therefore 
pouring  a  little  Water  on  the  Face,  is  not  Baptizing  the 
Perfon  :  Indeed  to  fcatter  a  iew  Drops  of  Water  upon 
the  ChiM,  whether  it  be  upon  his /;;r^,  his  Bacj^,  Hands 
«r  Feet  (for  our  poor  Opponents  have  no  Rule  to  diredl 
them  in  the  Cafe)  cannot  properly  be  called  fVaJhing  the 
Child  or  Perfon,  at  all.  But  Mr.  F.  tells  us,  he  has  yet 
a  more  full  Argument  from  Mark  vii.  4.      '  And  many 

*  other  Things    there  be,     which   they  have  received  to 

*  hold,  as  the  Waihing  (in  the  Greek  Bapti/moiiSy  that  is 

*  the  Baptifms)    of   Pots   and    Cups,    brazen  Veilels  and 

*  Tables.     'Tis  plain,   Firji,     that  Baptilm  is  here  tran- 

*  dated    Wafliing.      And,     2^/y,  That   thefe    Wafhings 

*  or  Baptifms,    cannot  be  underftood  of  Dipping  under 

*  Water  only  ;  for  every  one  knows,  that  Tables  are 
'  not   wafti'd  by  Dipping   them  under  Water  ;     but  hf 

*  applying  Water  to  them,  and  pouring  it  on  them.' 
Jnf.  What  may  be  the  prefent  Cuftom  of  Wafning 
Tables  (ox  Beds)  is  nothing  to  the  Purpofe  in  Hand  j 
Mr.  F.  ought  to  have  fhewn  how  ihsjews  wafhed  them, 
before  his  Argument  will  be  of  any  Force  in  this  Contro- 
verfy.  But  with  Mr.  Rees  *  I  Anfwer,  *  When  Bap- 
'  tijfmos  is  applied  to  their  wafhing  of  Cups,    Pots,  Vejfeh 

*  and  Tables,  'tis  very  eafily  accounted  for.     They   fu- 

*  perflitioufly  abufed  a  Ceremony  of  Gods  own  Appoint- 

*  ment.  Lev.  xi.  32.  for  the  Lord  had  commanded, 
'  that  whether  it  be  a  Veffel  ofWeody  or  Raiment,  or  Skin, 

*  or  Sack,  whatfoever  Veflel  it  be,  it  mull  be  put   in- 

*  TO  TVater.     But   how  thefe  Things  could  be  put  into 

*  Water,   without  Dipping  of  them,  can't  well  be  imagi- 

*  ned.     And  if  legal  Pollutions  required  the  Wafhing  of 

*  Garments,    Skins,  and  Sacks,    and  Utenftls  of  all  Sorts, 

*  except  Earthen  VefTels,  which  were  to  be  broken,  then 
'  I  fay,    'tis  no  Wonder  that  thefe  fanciful   People  the 

*  Jews,    abufed   the  lirft  Inftitution  of  this  Ceremony, 

*  by  ridiculoufly  wafhing  almoft  every  Thing,   and  their 

'  Bids 
•  Infant  BaBtifm  no  Inftitution  of  Chrift,   pag,  laj. 


(     1^3     ) 

*  Bed;  amnngft  other  Implements*  Hence  the  Conclu- 
fion,  which  juftles  Mr.  ^;V//ry's  out  of  its  Place,  is.  That 
Dipting  or  Plunging^  is  truly  and  properly  Baptifm,  ac- 
cording to  the  Import  of  the  Word,  and  its  Ufe  in  this 
Place. 

As  to  what  is  advanc'd  from  Heh.  ix.  lo.  That  the 
Jp-;Jile  refers  to  oil  the  Ceremonial  Purifications  and 
Cleanjings  without  Limitation,  'tis  too  large  to  be  true  ; 
for  at  the  19  Ver.  where  he  fpealcs  of  the  Purification  by 
Blood,  he  uleth  another  Word  ( Errhantife)  which  fig- 
jiifies,  .and  is  accordingly  render'd  (Tprinkled j  Mr.  F. 
is  pleafed  to  fay,  *  The  Apollle  in  Vti^e  19  of  this  Chap- 
'  ter,  calls  fome  of  thefe  Baptifms  Sprinklings.'  To 
which  the  Words  oi  the  famous  and  pious  Mr.  Keach,  are 
not  improper  for  a  Reply.  *  Wliether  that  Word  in 
Heb.  ix.  10.  is  the  fame  Twhich  is  ufed)  in  Hib.  ix. 
19.  is  it  tiiere  Baptizo  or  Rantizo  ?  fpeak,  and  confcfs 
your  Ignorance,  or  elfe  acknowledge  your  Sin  in  going 
about  to  deceive  the  People,  by  making  them  believe 
that  Sprinkling  is  in  Greek  Baptifm,  or  Baptizing  : 
For  tho'  Wafhing  in  Heb.  ix.  10.  is  Baptifm,  or  Bap- 
tizing, yet  in  Heb.  ix.  19.  Sprinkling  both  the  Book 
and  People,  you  muft  needs  know  is  in  the  Greek^ 
Rantizihg  +.'  To  this  I  fhall  fubjoin  what  the  Rev, 
Mr.  Gill  oi5ferves--  f  *  And  fays  our  Author,  //  is 
evident  from  the  Word  of  Gody  that  thofe  Wafhings  gene- 
ner  ally  flood  in  pouring  or  fpr  inkling  ofJVater  j  but  that's 
a  Mijlake  of  his,  for  they  neither  flood  in  them  gene- 
rally, nor  particularly  ;  for  thofe  ceiemonial  Ablutions 
were  always  perform'd  by  bathing.^  or  dipping  in  Wa- 
ter, and  are  called,  Diaphoroi,  divers.,  or  different.^ 
not  becaufe  they  were  performed  different  Ways,  as 
fome  by  Sprinkling,  others  by  Pouring,  and  others  by 
Plunging  ;  but  becaufe  of  the  difF«*~2nt  Perfons  and 
Things  the  Subjects  thereof;  Zhxne  Priejis,  Levites, 
Ifraelitts,  Vefjels,  Garments,  t^c.  And  here  it  mayn't 
be  omifs  to  obferve  what  Maimonides,  who  was  one  of 
the  moft  learned  of  the  Jewijh  Writers,    fays  concern - 

'  ing 

X    Anf.  to  Mr.  Jamn  Owtn,  pag.  166.        f    Aaticnt  Mode  of  Bap- 
Ufai,   pag.  6Si 


(  IH  ) 

*  mg  this  Matter,     merever  (fays  he)  the  TVaJhlng  oUht 
PltfTi  or  Garment  is  mentioned  in  the  Law,    it  means 

*  nothing  eife  than  the  Wafhingof  the  wiiole  Body  ;    for 

*  if  a  Man  waOies  himlclf  all  over,  excepting  the  very  7*/^ 

*  of  his  little  Finger,  he  is  flili  in  Ins  Uncleannefs.     Nay, 

*  he  favs,    'tis   nccefiary   that  every    Hair  of  his   Head 

*  Ihnuld  be  walhed  ;     and    therefore   the  Apoftle   might 

*  well  call  ihe(e  Wafhings  Baptifms.' 
Hence  it  appears,    tha't   Mr.  F'^  Opponent,    whoever 

he  was,  whom  he  labours  to  expofc,  may  juillv  refume 
his  Argument,  and  fay,  that  thofe  ceremonial  Ablutions, 
which  the  Apoftle  calls  Baptifms,  were  always  perform'd 
by  bathmg  or  dipping  in  Water,  and  therefoie  tu  bap- 
tize, enly  fignifies  ta  dip  ;  feeing  at  the  19th  Verfe  of  the 
9th  Chapter  of  the  Hebrews,  another  Woid  is  ufcd, 
which  fignifies  to  fprinkle. 

Says   our    Author,     '  I   next   advance  three   parallel 

*  Texts,     in  each  of  which  the  Word  Baptize^    fignifies 

*  not.  to  dip,    hat  to  fprinkle,    viz.   Mut.'iu.  i\.   Mark  i. 

*  8.   Luke  iii.    16.      He  Jhall  baptize  you  with  the  Holy 

*  Ghoji  and  with  Fire.'  He  fuggefts,  that  to  tranflate 
the  Words  thus,  He  fhall  dip  you  with  (or  m)  the 
Holy  Gho{\. -would  be  Jhoc  king,  and  grates  our  Ears  at 
firji  Hearing -But  by  the  W^ay,  I  think  'tis  a  very  fmooth 
and  eafy  Verfion,  to  fay,  I  dip  you  in  ^Pater,  a*s  he  confefles 
the  Particle  [ea]  may  be  rendered  ;  fo  that  the  Places 
wherein  the  Word  Baptizoy  is  ufed  in  a  proper  and  lite- 
ral Senfe,  conftantly  make  for  us— But  in  thefe  Texts  J 
(and  fome  others)  'tis  manifeflly  ufed  in  a  figurative  * 
Senfe  or  Meaning  ;  and  therefore  to  infer  from  the  meta- 
phorical Ufe  of  the  Word,  a  Meaning  different  from  its 
allowed  native  and  proper  Signification,  is  unreafonable 
and  very  unfair,  as  well  as  fallc  Way  of  Arguing :  And  yet 
Mr.  F.  does  fo  from  thefe  Texts,  with  as  much  Confidence, 
as  if  the  Word  was  ufed  in  them  in  its  literal  or  proper 
Senfe  :  When  he  pretends  to  anfwer  the  Queftion, 
What  is  it  to  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghoft,  and  how 
perfoimed  ?  He  fays  the  Scriptures  every  wh£re  ex- 
prefs  this  by  pouring  forth  his  Influences  on  Perfons. 
Mr,  F,  iho\ild  try  whether  the  Verfion  wpuld  fiQl  be  every 

Way 


i 


(    125    ) 

Way  8S  fl.ocVing  and  grating  to  his  Earsj    as  that  which 
he  rejeds,   viz.   to  fay.   He P)ail pcur  y-.ti  with  {or  in)  the 
Holy  Ghoji  ?    According;  to  his  wild  and  loofe  Way  of 
Reafoning,    the  Word    (Baptizing)    may  as  well  (ignifjr 
Sending,  or  Giving^  becaufe  ve  read  offending  the  Spirit, 
Gal.  iv.  6.    and  giving  the  Spirit,    f  John  iv.  13.  and  fo 
jnftead  of  coming;  at  the  truehteral  t»ignincation  of  the 
Word,we(hal!beJed  into theg'-eateftConfufion  imaginable. 
The  Reader  is  defued  to  obferve,  that  what  is  intended 
by  being   baptized   with  the  Holy  Ghoft,     ^c.    is  that 
extraordinary    Donation  of  the  Spirit,    on  the  Day    of 
PentccoJ}^  asismanifert  from  ASti'x.  5.     Ye  jhall  he  hapti- 
Ked  with  the   Holy   GhoJi,    riot  many  Days  hence  ;    which 
was  fulfi'led  on   the   Day  of  Pentrco/i.     Ads    ii.    2.-  — 
When  fuddenly  there  came  a  Sound  from  Heaven.,     as  of  a 
rufning  mighty  Wind,     and  it  filled  all  the  Hou^e,    when 
they  were  fitting,    and   there   appeared  unto  them  Cloven 
Itongucs,   like  as  of  Fire.,  and  it  fate  upon  each  of  them,  and 
they  were  all  filed  vnth  the  Hciy  GhoJi.     Now  if  there  is 
any  Argument  at  all  can  be  form'd  from  the  metaphori- 
cal Ufe  of  the  Word   in  thefe  Haffiges  of  Holy  Scripture, 
*tis  plainly  in  our  Favour  ;  for  as  a  Peifon  is  furrounded, 
overwhelmed,    and  covered  in  the  V\'ater  of  Baptifm,  fo 
the  Difciples  were  furrounded.  Overwhelmed,  and  cover- 
ed with  the  Holv  Ghofl  on  the  Day  of  Pentecoji  ;    when 
the  Spirit  like  a  mighty  ri/Jhing  Wind,    filled  all  the  Houfe, 
where  they  were  fitting,     and  in  the  Appearance  of  Cloven 
Tongues  fat  upo'^  each  of  them,  and  they  wtre  all  filled  with 
the  Holy  Ghofi.     Hence  to  fay  he  ftjall  baptize  you  in  the 
Holy  Ghoft,  does  not  feem  fo  very  ftrange  and  difagreea- 
ble,   for  they  were  as  if  they  had  been  dipped  or  plunged 
all  over  therein.     I  fay  if  thefe  Texts  are  of  any  Uie  in 
the  prefent    Controverfy,     tl.ey  ^crve  ro  exemplify  what 
we    maintain,    that  the  Word   fignifies  propetly  to  dip., 
t^c.  and  accounting  for  the  Phrafe,    as  above,  you  fee  Jt 
carries  in  it  a  beautiful  Allufion  to  the  Adminiflration  of 
Baptifm,  by  Immerfion  only,  ar.d  no*  ther  <Vay.     Fur- 
ther,  I  don't  find  the  common  InPue'icesand  Operationn 
of  the  Spirit  upon  the  Souls  of  V''en,    to  be  any  where  ia 
Scripture  called,    Baptizing  wit/?  the  Hely  GhoJi  3   and  if 


anv 


C    126    ) 

any  one  will   enlighten  me  of  any  Error  in  my  preferit 
Way   of   thinking,  I  (hall  be   obJig^d   to  him.      In  tJie 
mean  Time  I  maintain  again fl  the  enthufiajlic  Notions  of 
thofe  Herfonsi    who  under  Pretence  of  holding  the  Bap- 
tdm  of  the  Spirit,   do  utterly  reied  this  facred  Gofpel  Or^ 
dmance    of  Water  Baptifm,     That  none  in  our  X^av  can 
be  faid  to  be  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghoft  ;  fince  extra- 
ordmary  Gifts,  were  peculiar  to  extraordinary  Timesonly 
U  the  Work  of  the  Holy  Ghoft  in  Converfion  (or  in  the 
after  progrefTive  Work  of  Sanaification)    was  the  Thm? 
intended  by  the  Baptifm  of  the  Holy  Ghoft,   the  Apoftles 
and  Difciples  would   have  been  baotized   with  the  Holy 
Gbofl  long  before  the  Day  of  Pentecoff,    which   the/ 
were  not. 

This  alfo  ferves  to  enervate  Mr.  F%  Arguings  from 
thefe  Texts  in  favour  of  his  Pradlice  ;  for  the  Word 
Bapti%o,  is  manifeftly  ufed  in  them  metaphor ic ally  ;  and 
the  Reafon  why  this  metaphorical  Phrafe  is  ufed,  is  not 
with  Reference  to  the  common  Influences  of  the  Spirit, 
expreft  by  Pouring  or  Sprinkling  ;  but  with  Reference  to 
the  then  well-known  Mode  and  Pra£tice  of  Baptizing  in 
Water,  as  being  expreflive  of  that  extraordinary  Donati- 
on of  the  Holy  Spirit  :  And  confidering  the  Account 
v/hich  the  Scripture  gives  us  of  the  Manner  how  the  Dif- 
c-plcs  were  baptized  with  the  Holy  Ghoft,  it  does  not 
ibfcurely  point  out  to  us,  the  ancient  Mode  of  Baptizing. 

Upon  the  whole,  Mr.  F.  is  fo  far  from  proving  from 
thefe  Texts,  that  Boptixo  fignifies  to  fprinkle,  that  the 
Scripture  Account  makes  utterly  againft  his  AfTertion. 
And  when  we  review  all  the  Evidences  he  pretends  to 
bring  for  his  Opinion,  he  manifeftly  fails  to  cite  one  fin- 
gle  Inftance,  either  from  Lexico-graphers^  Divines^  or 
Scripture,  where  Baptizo  is  rendered  or  fignifies  to  pour 
OTjprinkle  ;  fo  that  lor  ought  he  has  faid,  the  Baptijs 
may  reft  as  confident  as  before,  that  Baptizo,  natively 
and  properly  fignifies  to  dip  or  plunge  ;  and  confequently, 
tliat  none  can  be  faid  to  be  baptized,  according  to  the 
Meaning  of  the  Word,  and  the  Ufe  of  it  in  Scripture^ 
but  tiiefe  who  are  dipfd, 

Mr. 


I 


(       127       ) 

Mr.  F.  proceeds  next  to  the  Scripture  Examples  which 
we  bring  for  Immerfion,  and  labours  all  he  can  to  render 
thofe  evident  Places  doubtful,  and  becloud  the  Light 
which  they  give  us  in  the  Affair,  that  if  poffible  Room 
may  be  made  for  his  Opinion  and  PraBice.  The  Texts 
are,  Mark  i.  5.  And  there  went  out  unto  him  all  the  Land 
e/Judea,  and  they  o/"Jerufa!em,  <?«fl'w^r^(7//baptized  of  him 
in  the  River  of  'Jordan^  confejjing  their  Sins,  Mat.  iii.  5, 
6.  Mark  i.  9.  And  it  came  to  pafs  in  thofe  Days,  that 
yefus  came  from  Nazareth  o/'Galilee,  and  was  baptized  of 
John  in  Jordan.  Matt.  iii.  16.  And  f  ejus  when  he  was 
baptized.,  went  upfiraightway  our  of  the  Water,  fohn  iii. 
23.  And  John  alfo  was  baptizing  in  Enon,  near  to  Salim, 
becaufe  there  w^as  much  Water  there  ;  and  they  came,  and 
were  baptized.  Ads  viii.  38,  39.  And  they  went  down 
both  into  the  Water,  both  Philip  and  the  Eunuch,  and 
he  baptized  bim.  And  tvhen  they  were  come  up  out  of  the 
Water,   the  Spirit  of  the  Lord  caught  away  Philip. 

Remembring  whnt  the  Pesdo-baptijls  grant  us,  that 
Baptizo  natively  and  properly  fignifies  to  dip  ox  plunge,  thefe 
Texts  are  fo  full  and  clear  in  our  Favour,  that  Baptifra  is 
rightly  adminlltrcd  by  Immerfion,  as  to  need  no  Expla- 
nation ;  and  indeed  it  would  be  but  to  light  a  Candle  to 
fee  the  Sun  by,  to  do  it.  My  prefent  Bufinefs  therefore, 
{hall  be  to  refute  what  Mr.  F.  has  thought  proper  to  objetSI: 
againft  us,  and  vindicate  the  Truth  held  forth  in  thefc 
Places  of  Scripture.      Says   our  Author,     *  If  yohn  had 

*  preached  in  Jerufalem,    and  afterwards  gone   out   to  a 

*  River  or  Pool  to  baptize  his  new  Converts,  there  would 

*  have  been  fome  Colour  of  Probability  that  he   plunged 

*  them.'  Anf.  When  I  read  this  Paflage,  I  can't  forbear 
thinking  of  what  the  chief  Priefts,  Scribes,  and  Elders 
faid  once,  vi'hen  Chrift  was  on  the  Crofs,  If  he  bi  the 
King  o/Ifrael,  let  him  now  come  down  from  the  Crofs,  and 
we  will  believe  him.  Yes,  to  be  fure  !  they  promife  fair,  « 
if  Chrifl  would  do  as  they  would  have  it.  Juft  as  if  there 
was  not  fufficient  Evidence  of  his  being  the  Son  of  God, 
and  Kingof  7/rW,  without  all  this  !  But  who  can  Num- 
ber the  Obje^ions  which  Unbelief  will  invent  !  Tho'  it  is 
not  my  Defign  to  fet  Mr.  F,  upon  a  Level  with  thofe 

cbduratf 


C      128      ) 

obdurate  Creatures  in  other  Points,  yet  his  Objeflion  here 
is  a  Coin  of  the  fame  Mint  with  theirs  ;  only  one  Side  it 
happens  not  to  have  the  Promife  to  beheve,  in  fuch  fair 
Capitals  as  theirs  had,  if  the  Thing  required  was  granted. 
But  (pray)  is  there  no  Colour  ot  Probability  that  John 
dipp'd  or  plung'd  his  new  Converts  without  this  ?  when 
he  baptized  them  in  the  River  of  Jordan  ;  when  he  admi- 
jiiftred  the  Ordinance  in  Emn^  becaufe  there  was  much 
Water  there  ;  when  Chrift  himfelf  was  baptized  in  Jor- 
dan^  and  afterwards  came  up  out  of  the  Water.  Again, 
is  there  no  Colour  of  Probability  that  he  plung'd  them, 
when  the  People  went  out  to  him  from  JerufaUm^  iffc.  not 
only  to  hear  him  preach,  but  alfo  with  a  Defign  to  be  ba 
tized  by  him  i*  as  is  clear  in  the  Cafe  of  the  Pharifees  an 
Sadducees,  who  came  forth  to  be  baptized  ;  whom  h$ 
rejedled,  becaufe  they  were  not  qualified  Perfons,  Alatt, 
iii.  7.  Luke  iii.  7.  Chap.  7,  29,  30.  Put  all  this  toge- 
ther, and  'twill  not  only  amount  to  give  a  Colour  of  Pro- 
bability that  the  People  were  immers'd  by  John,  but  to 
a  very  fufficient  and  fatisfying  Evidence  fhey  were  fo. 
*  We  don't  read  (fays  he)  that  John  baptized  at  Jor- 

*  dan^  beoaufe  it  contain'd  much  Water  j    but  becaufe  it 

*  contain'd  r^-^/ Water,  and  was  convenient  for  that  pre- 
••  fent  Time.'  Jnf.  What  poor  Shifts  is  our  Author  put  to 
in  his  oppofing  the  fcriptural  Mode  of  Baptifm.  Will  Mr. 
F.  tell  us  what  Rivers  or  Brooks  of  Water  thofe  are,  wherein 
the  Water  is  not  real  Water  ?  or  was  real  Water  to  be 
found  in  the  River  of  Jordan  only  ?  I  defire  him  to  pro- 
duce the  Place  where  he  reads  thzt  John  baptized  in  Jor- 
dan, becaufe  it  contain'd  real  Water. 

We  have  review'd  our  Argument,  and  find  it  flands 
very  well,  and  as  yet  unmovable,  being  confirm'd  by  the 
proper  Signification  of  the  Word,  Baptizo^  the  Places 
where  Baptifm  was  adminiflred,  even  in  a  River,  and 
where  there  was  much  Water;  and  other  Circumftances 
of  its  Adminiftration  :  All  which  do  harmonioufly  concur 
to  eftablifh  the  Pomt  that  Baptizing  is  Dipping  ;  confe- 
quently  John  dipt  the  People  in  Jordan. 

Mr.  F.  endeavours  to  affign  fufRcient  Reafon  for  John's 
baptizing  in  Enon^  without  fuppofing  him  to  do  fo  for  the 

Sake 


C   129   ) 

^akeof  Plunging  :     *  In  order  hereto    (fays  he)  obferve 
'  that  the  Original  is  hudata  polla^  that  is,  many  Waters^ 
.  *  a  Place  of  Rivulets  and  Springs  ;  there  might  be  feveral 
fmall  Streams,  yet  none  of  tbemlllep  enough  to  plun'^e 
one  in  ;     nor  can  the  contrary  be  made  appear.'     Anf, 
With  mQre]Ki^x\tk  I  may  fay,  there  might  be  feveral  large 
Streams,  and  all  of  them  deep  enough  to  plunge  People* 
in  ;  nor  can  the  contrary  be  made  appear.     Our  Oppo- 
nents run  one  after  another  in  their  bare  Aflertions,  thac 
thefe  many  Waters  were  little  or  fmall  Streams,  or  many 
Springs- -But    why   don't    they   give  us   feme  Inftances 
where  the  original  Words  muft  be  fo  underftood  ?    or 
l^ipmefubllantial  Reafons  to  confirm  what  they  fay,    from 
P'this  Place.     But   that  this  is  an   idle  Evafion   of  theirs, 
will  appear  from  the  Ufeof  the  fame  Words,  by  the  fame 
divine  Penman,  m  other  Parts  of  his  Writings. 

Rev.  i.  15..-  -And  his  Voice  as  the  Sound  hudatoon  pol- 
ioon  5/ many  Waters  :    Small  Streams  or  Rivulets,  have 
either  no.  Sound  at  all,  or  at  the  moft  but  very  little,  in- 
fufficient  to  anfwer  the  Defign  of  the  Apoftle,   in  his  uCmg 
thefe  Words  ;     which  was  to  fet  forth  the  P'oice  of  Chriit 
to  be  a  mighty  loud  Voice,    terrible  to  his  Enemies,  or 
powerful  to  raife  iMen  from  the  Death  of  Sin  ;     high  and 
greats     heard  afar  off,  and  very  terrible  and  dreadful ;     as 
the  Rev.  Mr.  Durham  notes  ;    which  could  not  be  repre- 
fented  but  by  the  Sound  of  much,  or  great  Waters.     The 
Reader  may  further  confult  Rev.  xiv.  2.    Chap.  xvii.    i. 
Chap.  xix.  6.   where  the  fame  Phrafe  is  ufed  in  the  Ori- 
ginal ;    in  all   which   Places,    it  can't  be  underftood  to 
mean  or  allude  to  little  Streams,  or  Rivulets  ;  and  there- 
iore  we  have  no  need  to  queftion  but  the  Words  in   the 
Place  under  Confideration,    do  alfo  fignify  much  JVater^    ' 
as  our  Englijh  Verfion  reads  it,  fufficient  for  the  Adminif! 
tration  of  Baptifm  by  Immerfion,  ^notwithftanding  the 
trifling  and  inligniiicant  Objeaions  of  our  Opponents  to 
the  contrary. 

Again,  it  is  worthy  our  obferving,  that  the  Holy 
Ghoft  gives  us  the  Reafon  why  John  baptized  in  Mmn, 
VIZ.  hecaufe  there  was  much  Water  there  :  Now  'tis  plain 
that  the  Mode  of  Baptizing  by  Immerfion,    is  the  only 

I  Mode 


(     130     ) 
Mode  which  requires  much  Water  in  the  Adminiftration 
of  this  Ordinance  ;  rdl  <  ther  pretended  Modes  by  Pouring 
or  Sprinichng  require  but  verv  Itttle,     a   Bafon  full  carri- 
ed into  a  \lLeting  Hjlpfe,  oi  eifewiiere,   would  go  a  great 
Ways  :     If  it   be  luppofid  th^  relation  is  herein  had  to 
foniething   elfe,    and    nor  to  fuch  a  Mode  of   Baptifm, 
%hich  requires  mu'h  Water  in  the  Admmiftration  ot  it, 
the  Reafon  h^^e  given  bv  the  Holy  Gnoil,     would  not  at 
all    be  expreiTntr,    or   il!a(trative,     why    John    baptized 
where  theiewas  mich  V/ater,  any  more  than  elftrwhere  ; 
and  io  ufe  Mr.  Fb  Words,  Can  we  once  ih'ink  that  the  Hol^ 
Ghoji  Jhould  thus  faultcY  in  txprejfing  h'lmfclf  f  fur  he 
from  us  :  J-  f'f  me^   I  pall  an  Hundred  Times  f. oner  ch 
to  impute  Abfiodity  and  Nonfenfe  to  our  Opponents    ReajtiH' 
ings,    than  to  the  Holy  Scripture Sy   ftnce  J  ?nuJ1  impute  fun 
ThiKgs  to  one  ef  them.     I  [:deed  to  fay  as  our  Opponents  do, 
'   Tlsat  John  had  need  to  be  where  theie  was  plenty  of 

*  Water,  that  the  People  and  their  Horfes,   and  Camels, 

*  might  drink.*     That  this  fhould  be  imagined  to  be  the 
Rt-afon  why  he  baptized  where  there  was  much  Water, 
is  fuch  a  wild  extravagant   Fancy,    that  deferves  not  a 
ferious  Anfwer,    when  there  is  no  Intimation  of  any  fuch 
Thing  in  the  Text,  or  Context.     But  any  Thing  to  co- 
lour their  Argument,^  and  blind  the  Reader  with.      I  can't 
but  obferve  Mr.  Fs  Inadvertency  in  Writing    (to  fay  no 
worfeof  itj   when  he  repiefents  the  Matter  as  if  the  great 
Multitudes  from  Jerufileniy  and  all  Judea,  and  from  the 
Rciiion  round  about  Jordan^     were  bapiiZfd  of  John   in 
/Encn  ;    wlien  the  Scripture  is  plain  that  the  Multitudes 
vere  baptized    in   Jordan,     Mark    i.    5.     Our   Author 
miaht  have  obferved,     that  when  John  was  baptizing  in 
/Enon,  the  Crowds  then  attended  the  M.niftrv  of  Chrift, 
John  I'll.  26.   for  John  was  on  the  declining  Hand,   John 
iii.   30.     But  this  Obfervation,     it   feems,    would  not  fo 
■well  itit  with  Mr   F's  DLfign  and  Way  of  Accounting  for 
John  a   Adminiftring    the    Ordinance   where  theie   was 
i-nuch  Water,  viz.   that  the  Multitudes,  with  their  Hor- 
fo  and  Camels,  might  have  Water  to  drink. 

Another   Device   Mr.   F.   has  found   out,  •  why  7''^'" 
baptized  where  Water  was  plenty,   is,    *  That  he  might 

'  cut 


r  131  ; 

'  cut  ofF  al!  Occafion  of  OfFemce  from  the  ceremonious 
fews,    who  would  be  apt  to  ftumble  at  his  ufino-  what 
^   they   would   count   polluted  Water  ;     efpecially "feeing 
^  that  they  had  a  Law  made  concerning  a  folemn  Puri- 
^  hcation,     which  required  frefh  running  Water,    Nurk 
x.x    17,   18'--     Anf.     \{  there   is  any  Thing   to  the 
Purpofe  .n  all  this,  Mr.  F.  ]x^^  helps  on  our  Argument  1 
for  according   to  that  Law  of  Purification,     the  unclem 
Perfon  was  not  ckans'd  till  the  Seventh  Dav,.    when   he 
v^z^  to  wajjo  his  Clothes,  and  bathe  hlmfelfm  Water,  and  he 
Jhouldbe  clean  at  Even,   ver.  19.     Now  if  it   was  fo  that 
^^    John  intended  to  cut  ofF  all  Occafion   of  Ofl^ence  from 
;:*  the  ceremonious  Jexvs,  he  muft  not  only  ufe  rimnlns:  Wa- 
Ur      but  alfo  dip   the  Perfons  in  it,    anfwerable  fo   the 
unclean  Perfon's  bathing  himfelf  in  Water,  for  his  corn- 
pleat  Purification,  or  Cleanfing  ;  otherwife  the  ceremo- 
nious Jews  might  ftill  have  Occafion  of  Offence,   becaufe 
they  well  knew,    even  from  the  Inflance  Mr   F.  cites 
that  the  unclean  Perfon  was  not   purified    by   the  Water 
fprmkled  on  him,     but  by  ivajhing  his  Clothes,    and  bath- 
zng  tnmfelfin  Water. 

,  '  j^'^^'f  ^  f^^vs  hej  it  appears  not,  that  the  Wilder^ 
ne(s  of  Judea  afl^orded  Water  fufficient  for  the  afore- 
faid  Purpofes.'  Jnf.  'Tis  even  ai^onifting  how  w^ak 
znd  impertinent  our  Opponent  does  objeal  Had  the 
W.lderndsotyW.^,  or  the  Land  of  C^.,^^;;,  elfewhere 
been  as  dry  as  the  Sandy  Deferts  of  Arabia,  it  would  not 
afFea  our  Argument  from  this  Inflance,  when  according 
to  the  Scnptures  we  affirm  that  there  was  Water  enough 
in  thok  Places  where  John  adminiftred  the  Ordinance  to 
dip  Perfons  all  over,  viz.  In    the  River  Jordan,    and  in 

the  Objea.on  of  the  Scarcity  of  Water  in  the  Land  of 
tTI'  ^^"   ^"^^'^'^    ^^^^^^'^   in   Dcut.  viii.  7.     For  the 

Brooks  ./Water     ./Fountains,    «;.^  Depths  that  fprln. 
««f  0/ Valleys  «W  Hills.  -^^     "^ 

As  to  any  further  Objeaions,  which  Mr.  F.  h  pleas'd 
to  advance  againft  Immerfion,  the  Scriptural  Mode  of 
iiaptifm  J    ti3  obfervable,  that  the  Jews    (who  were  al- 

^  ^  ways 


r  13^  ) 

trays  accuftom'd  to  their  legal  Purifications,    which  re- 
quir'tl  wadiinsr.    f  tlv;a-  Clothes,    and  bathing  tlieir  Flefli 
in  Water j  can't  be  fuppofed  to  be  f  >  fcant  of  Riiment  for 
i'uch  Ufe.*      or  fo   much  at  a  Lofs  how  to  preferve   the 
Kules  of  i\1odeflv   and  Decency,    in  their  t:ubmilaon  to 
Baptifm  by  Immcrfion,    as  our  Author  fuirgefts  ;    and  I 
believe    the  Reafun    whv  our  Opp.nent?  advance  luch 
fimple  Objedtions  againft  the   ancient  Mode  of  Baptizing, 
is  for  want  ot  better  Argument  ;  f.eing  they  can't  jvcr- 
throw  what  thev  oppofe,  they  labouj  to  nrsk:  u  look  odi- 
ous and   ridiculous  to  the  World,    and    tl»c  n  core'  .'de, 
there  is  not  one  g-:od  A^gvmprA  io  prove  that  John  bap  ijed 
by  Dipping      but  nnmy  cgawj]  it       I  con.fefs  out  0=>r>o- 
nenis  do  "indeed  b.  ig  manv  A-gum-^nts  againlHt,     !>ut 
they  are  L  far  from  iLiniT  7,W,    that  th.-.  defe"  e  no  fich 
1  itle,   being  in  .hemieUts  but  n»ere  ^n-.blff   ai^d  tr.fl  ng 
Evajions,  that  I  admire  Men  of  Scn/e  and  Learning  Wuu'.d 
be  guilt'-  ofufingthem 

Let  us  biitflv  confi  ;er  what  Mr.  /"  favs  concerning 
thefe  Texts  Adat.Vn  \t.  JrJs'xn.  38,  39.  Here  iie 
lays,    *   The  v,-holc  Foice  ot  their  Arcrnmcnt  depends  on 

*  the  fmali  Prepolitions  into  and  out  oJ\   which  ihe)  f'p- 

*  pofe  piove  them  to  have  been  dipt  *  /fnf  Who  th)fe 
are  that  fuppofe  thus,"  I  can't  hv  :  Di't  he  evei  lead  an/ 
Baptirt  Author,  that  argues  after  the  iManner  he  talks  ? 
We  argue  from  thefe  Circumftances,  that  Chrift,  our 
glorious  Pattern^  as  well  as  f-^ur  gracious  Redeemer,  and 
zKo  ihe  Eunuch,  were  in  the  Water,  when  tliey  were 
baptized  ;  and  fr<<m  the  Signification  of  the  Word,  iffc. 
that  they  were  dipt.  I  (hall  juft  take  Notice  of  what  Vlr. 
F.  fays  about  thtfe  Prepofitions,  Jpo,  Ek,  and  Eis.  And 
in  Rtlpea  of  j^po.,  he  finds  Fault  with  the  learned  Tran- 
Jlators  of  the  B-.ble,    for  rendering  apo  tou  hudatos.    Mat. 

111.  16.  out  of  the  irater  ;  and  tells  us,  ^  This  I  am  bold 
<  to  fay,    ought  to  have  been  rendered  from  the  IVatcri 

*  and  can  appeal  to  i^ll  who  undcrftund  the  Language, 
«  that  apo   liridly   and   properly   figiiifies /rcw,  and  not 

*  out  of:  Anf.  But  what  is  gain'o  bv  this  low  Criti- 
cifm  r  truly  nothing  at  all  j  for  Chr.it  was  not  baptized 
on  the  Banks  of  the  Rivei,  but  in  Jordan,  Maik  i.  9. 
then  every  one  knows  he  mult  come  up  out  0/ the  Waters 

of 


(     133     ) 

orjo-d  n.  Con'pq  c^tl  upoj-  d  e  Examination,  our  Erf^ 
glijJ?  t  r;nl!-!.iOii  is  uox  c^'rupt  in  '.tifs,  as  Mi .  F.  fu^- 
j;eiis,  bu  very  weli  exp'eflesthe  ALanin^  o^  xht  Prepcfi- 
tion  apo  ,n  his  ^"iace  ;  and  how  Mr.  F  can  urulerlhnd 
it  othtrwiftr,  I  can't  leidily  im.  gine.  "When  he  rp,.'aksof 
appealing  to  the  Lfaintd  upon  this  Occatlon^  I  iuppofe  he 
me;.' MS  thofe  rhat  o,t.b\a,.'d  rohij.  Wav  of  linking  ;  for 
our  learned  Tiaiifi  .rois,  no  Doubi,  rhouf^hr  that  Jpo  in 
the  controverted  IJace,  p'operly  figriifi;.  out  of,  and  nave 
rendered  it  acc!.rdiii2.^. 

Mr.  F's  Memory  certoinW   verv  much   fa-Is  him,     or 
elfe  he  h.is  nr.r  re  d  Che  Netv  Tejlnment  i    v/i.<fn  he  dys^ 

*  Nor  dw  J  ^t  p'e!">iiir  renvin'rir  o-  c  r'':.  c&  in  all  .hr  Bii.Ie, 

*  befides  tJ;'s,     whci"   i(   is  t-anilred  ^j/ff /j^  ;     H.  r  com- 

*  nioniv  t.f.  ox  fom.*  Let  h-ui  confuln  Z.. ^'.  :y  35. 
apo  outou^  outofh'm.  Vii\h  j^i.  apopoUoon^  out  of  many. 
Luke  viii.  2g.  apo  tm  Anihiopou,  o'tt  of  fhe  Man.  So 
Vetfe  33.  AdsxVT!.  2.  ap.<  toon  Graphoon,  out  of  the 
Scripturt-s.  Ihefe  fnftance?  ma  ■  fuffice  tu  help  his  Me- 
mo'y,  w  hde  he  looks  for  more.  Here  I  would  allc  Mr. 
F  whether  A-o    '>  Jit^fe  I'laces,  does  not  Jlritily  iiad  pro- 

pe:  ly  lijinify  out  cf. 

He  ucknowled/es  that  the  Prepofirions  Eis^  znd  Ek^ 
do  often  r)g"ify  into  and  out  of  '.hrre  is  therefore  no  Ne- 
celiHty  i  fhouid  bring  Initances  to  fhew  they  do  fo.  But 
then  ve  mull  lliew  they  figiiify  fo  in  the  controverted 
,  Place,  Jsis  via.  38,  39  V.  we  take  it  for  granted  that 
they  d)  figtufy  into  and  cui  of ^  a?  our  Tranflaiors  have 
rendered  rhem  in  the  difputed  Place,  Mr.  F.  can  never 
Ihevy  to  the  contrary  but  we  are  right  j  and  it  was  his 
Bufmefs,  if  he  had  done  any  Thirg  to  Purpofe,  to 
fhew  that  we  nitilook  t'le  Signification  of  thefe  Prepofiti- 
ons  m  the  faid  Place,  or  tlrat  they  art  wrong  tranflaied  ; 
doing  lels  than  thit.,  was  djing#of  nothing  butmikinga 
Noife  and  Blutier  in  vain.  However,  we  have  an  Argu- 
ment with  a  tolerable  good  Face  to  it,  that  eis  and  ek,  in 
j£fs  viii.  38,  39.  dohgiiify  into  and  out  of ;  becaufe  Mr. 
F.  aflertsiii  the  *  Page  before  me,  that  PhiUp  came  up 
out  of  the  Water,  as  zvell  as  the  Eunuch.  1  hen  they  cer- 
tainly were  both  in  it.     'l^is  very  natUiul  then,    to  un- 

I  3  deiftand 

*  93' 


(  134  ) 
tlciftand  that  eis  to  hudoor  fignifies  into  the  Wdter^  or  elfe 
liow  could  Mr.  F.  aflert,  they  botli  came  up  out  o/"the 
Water,  if  they  were  never  in  it  ?  TJius  Mr.  F.  at  una- 
vjarei  confirms  all  that  we  plead  for,  vix.  that  Eh  and 
Ek  in  this  Place,  do  fignify  into,  and  out  of. 

Having  clear'd  our  Way  fo  far,  'tis  proper  to  obferve, 
that  this  PalFage  concerning  Phdip\  baptizing  the  Eu- 
nuch, feta  the  Matter  in  fuch  a  clear  Light,  tlrat  no 
Objection  of  any  Weight,  can  poflibly  be  made  againft 
what  we  do  profefs  :  Here  the  Holy  Gholt  Mixy  particu- 
larly obferves  unto  us.  That  they  came  u>ito  a  certain 
Water  ;  that  they  both  -went  down  into  the  Water  ;  and, 
that  the  Matter  might  be  yet  clearer,  'tis  added,  both 
Philip  and  the  Eunuch  ;  that  he  baptized  (i.  e.  dipped^ 
iiim  ;  that  they  both  came  up  cut  of  thelVater  :  Nf^thing 
can  be  plainer,  unlefs  one  was  to  have  feen  the  Ordinance 
adminiitred,  with  his  own  Eyes.  Hence  Calvin  on  tlie 
Place  fays,  *  *  Here  we  fee  what  was  the  Rite  of  Bapti- 
zing with  the  Antients  ;  for  they  plunged  the  whole 
Body  into  Water.'  And  pray  tor  what  Reafon  did  the 
Holy  Ghofl:  pen  the  Account  fo  particular,  but  for  our 
Learning  and  Imitation  ?      And, 

Why  fliould  our  Mother's  Children  be  angry  with  us, 
for  pleading  that  BaptiTm  oui^ht  now  to  be  adminiftred  ac- 
cording to  the  Apoilolical  and  Primitive  Practice,  fo  as 
to  load  us  with  Reproaches,  Contempt,  and  Difdain  ; 
feeing  in  this  Particular,  we  only  adt  according  to  the 
foinin^  Example  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  his  blefTed  Fol- 
Jowers. 

Mr.  F.  goes  on  in  his  impertinent  Way,  and  talks  as 
if  we  thought  a  Perfon  could  not  go  into,  or  come  up  out 
of  the  Water,  without  being  plung'd  under  it,  or  have 
been  at  the  Bottom  :  VVe  know  he  may  go  into  the  Wa- 
ter ton  Hundred  Times,  vwthout  being  plung'd  under  it-- 
But  how  vaftly  different  is  that  from  the  Cafe  in  Hand  ! 
when  the  Adminiftrator,  and  Perfon  to  be  baptized, 
<jo  both  go  down  into  the  Water,  the  one  to  baptize, 
the  other  to  be  baptized  (as  in  the  Cafe  of  Philip  and  the 
Fiunuch)  Here  we  fay,  the  one  goes  down  into  the  Wa- 
ter 
*  Cited  by  Mr.  GiU,  Ancier.t  Mode  of  Eapt.  p.  45. 


(     135    ) 
ter,     in  order  to  be  baptized,    and  comes  up  a  baptized 
Pertbn.     And  for  ought  tlut   yet  appears,    wc  |ia;'e  no 
Reafon  to  be  aftiamed  of  our  Argument,    as  Mr.  F.  fug- 
gcfls.  ^ 

Says  our  Antagonift,    *  They   that   go  down  to  the 

*  Sea  in  Sh'ps,  Pjahn  c\\\.  23.  are  not  fuppofed  10  go 
'  under  the  Water.'  An't  they  ?  Let  him  fifk  oea-fa- 
iirg  Men  then,  if  they  don't  go  under  the  Waier,  whea 
the  ftormy  Wind  aiifeth,  which  Jifteth  up  the  Waves 
of  the  Lea  that  they  are  mounted  up  to  Heaven,  and  they 
godi'Wn  again  to  the  Depths  ;  their  Soul  is  melted  becaufe 
of  Trouble  ;  an-d  I  believe  they'll  inform  him,  there  is 
nothing  more  common  than  for  the  vexed  Surges  to 
break  over  them  at  fuch  Times,  How  impertinent 
therefore  is  this  Inflance  to  what  Mr.  F.  is  upon  ?  '  If 
'  out  of  the  Water  (fays  he)  fignify  the  lame  as  from  un- 

*  der  ir,  we  can  then  prove,  that  Philip  was  plung'd  as 

*  well  as  the  Eunuch  '      In  Anfwcr  to  this,  and  what  Mr. 
* F.  cites  out  of  Dr.  Ridgely^    Mr.  Rees   his   Repb   is    fuf- 

ficient.     *  Nor  is  there  any  one  that  fuppofed  Fhilip  and 

*  the   Eunuch   were  all  over^     and    pi'perly   with  their 

*  whole  Bodies  at  the  Bottom  of  that  Water  ;  hut  that 
'   they  firlt  rtood  in  it,   and  that  Philip  put  the  whole  Body 

*  of  the  Eunuch  entirely  under  the  Surface  of  tne  Water, 
'  fo  that  he  might  be  fiid  to  be  all  over  covered  there- 
'  with  :  And  afterwards  they  ho\.\iwent^  or  Walked  our  cf 
'  the  Water,  But  the  learpcd  Dr.  has  hit  upon  as  odd  a 
'  Notion  of  coming  out  of  the  Water ^  as  I  think  was  ever 

*  heard  of  ;  when  he  fays,  (p.  418)  Where  Perfcns  are 
'  faid  to  come  up  out  of  the  Water,  it  denotes  an  Action 
'  performed  uith  Defign,  and  the  perfect  Exercife  of  the 
'  Underftanding,  in  him  that  does  it  ;  which  feems  not 
'  agreeable  to  one  who  is  at  the  Bottom  of  the  Water» 
'  and  can't  well  come  up  from  thence,  unlefs  by  the 
'   Help  of  him   that  baptized  nim.     Now  for  this   very 

*  Reafon  which  the  DoSior  offers  himfelf,    'tis  probable,. 

*  that  'tis  the  Hrft  Time  that  this  Motion  was  ever  called 

*  coming  out  of  the  Water  ;  the  Scripture  never  calls  it  fo, 
'  that  1  know  of  :  For  in  flricl  Propriety  of  Speech,  and 
'  good  Senfe,  this  Part  which  we  are  fpeaking  cf   (emer- 

1  4  *  g^-^s) 


(     136    ) 

ging)  fhould  be  called  Riftng^  or  being  rats' d  out  of  the 
Water,  Accordingly  St.  Amhrofe  calls  it,  Refurgimur^ 
Refufcitamur,  i.e.  VVearer//^«,  or  ro/iV  again.  But 
then  it  is  eafy  to  conceive,  that  when  a  Perfon  has  been 
t^us  rais'd,  zndplac'd  upon  his  Legs  after  his  Baptifm, 
he  may  make  ufe  of  his  Underftanding,  Ingoings  or 
walking  up  out  of  the  Water.  Dr.  Hammond  was  fo  well 
fatisfied  in  this,  that  when  fpeaking  of  the  Baptifm  of 
our  Lord,  he  fays.  He  went  out  of  the  Water  before 
"John.  And  'tis  very  natural  to  conceive  thus,  of  this 
Affair  :  For  the  Adminijirator  is  commonly  the  Firji 
who  goes  intOy  and  the  La/i  who  comes  out  of  the  Wa- 
ter^ in  performing  the  Ordinance  of  Raptifm.  I  ob- 
ferve  further,  that  the  worthy  Dr.  Ridge/y  repeats  the 
Term,  Boftem  of  the  Water^  in  this  Difpute.  There 
is  no  great  Need  for  this  Phrafe  ;  for  we  never  defire  to 
put  Perfons  to  the  Bottom  of  the  Font,  but  only  under 
the  Surface  of  the  Water,  fo  as  that  their  Bodies  may  be 
once  covered  all  over,  and  then  they  are  immediately* 
rais'dupy  and  this  is  fufficient  to  anfwer  the  End  of  the 
Ordinance.'  % 

Mr.  F.  offers  fome  further  Objeftions  again  ft  Immerfl- 
on  ;  but  thev  are  very  inconftderable,  as,  '  That  we  ne- 
ver read  of  any  going  into.,  or  out  of  the  Wacer,  fave 
only  when  they  were  in  the  Woods,  or  on  the  Road  } 
then  whoever  would  be  baptized,  mufl  go  where  the 
Water  was  ;  and  not  having  Veffels  to  take  it  up  with- 
al, it  was  therefore  convenient  to  go  a  little  Way 
into  the  Water,  that  the  Baptizer  might  more  readily 
take  it  up  with  his  Hand.'  To  this,  and  what  follows  it, 
much  of  the  fame  Nature,  I  Anfwer,  I  prefume  to  fay, 
be  does  not  read  any  where,  that  Water  was  brought  to 
^BV  Houfe,  to  pour  or  fprinkle  upon  Perfons  ;  but  we 
read  of  People's  going  out  ofjerufalcm,  and  elfewhere, 
to  fnhn  to  be  baptized  :  ro  fuppofe  that  the  Eunuch  had 
jio/^j^iA-  v/ith  him  in  the  Chariot,  is  very  improbable  -- 
or  that  it  was  ufiial  for  the  BaptizerS  then,  to  go  a  little 
Way  into  the  Water,  for  the  greater  Conveniency  to 
take  it  up  with  their  Hands  (I  fuppofe  he  means  to  fprMi- 
kle  on  the  People)  is  fuch  a  fimplc  Way  of  Accounting  for 

Things, 

^^  Aiiimad.  on  a  D.fciurfs  of  Inf.  Bapt.  p.  778. 


(  137  ) 
Things,  as  can  be.  What  Impediments  or  Difeafes  does 
Mr.  Finley  fancy  thofe  Baptizeis  laboured  under,  that 
they  could  not  well  re^ch  to  take  Water  up,  unlefs  they 
went  fome  Diftance  into  it  ?  We  fee  what  (orry  Shifts 
Men  are  put  to,  for  to  find  fome  Conjedlures,  whereby 
they  would  endeavour  to  turn  aftde  the  plain  Truth  of 
Things  :  To  vhat  he  fays  fuither,  I  would  juft  afk  him. 
Does  he  not  read  of  great  Multitudes  going  from  their 
dwelling  Places  avay  to  John^  and  were  baptized  by  him 
in  the  River  of  'Jordan  ?  And  when  'John  was  baptizing  in 
/Enon^  becaufe  there  was  much  Water  there,  does  not  he 
read  of  others  coming  to  him,  and  were  baptized  of  him 
there  ?  And  where  does  Mr.  F.  think  they  came  from, 
but  out  of\.\\Q\x  Houfes  and  Cities  ?  So  that  there  appears 
not  only  a  Probability,  but  a  very  great  Certainty,  that 
Baptifm  was  anciently  admiiiiftred  by  Immerfion. 

Another  Objedion  is,  '  That  the  ApoftJes  preached 
wherever  they  came  ;  wherever  they  preach'd,  fome 
were  converted.— -Now  they  were  not  always  nigh  to 
Rivers  or  Ponds,  nor  had  they  Fonts  eie<Sl:ed  for  this 
End  ;  they  mufl  then  either  not  baptize  at  all,  or  elfe 
muft  do  it  fome  other  Way,  than  by  plunging  ;  that  is, 
by  pouring  ox  fprinkling.'  Anf.  Does  Mr.  F.  read  that 
the  Apojiles  could  not  baptize  their  New  Converts  for 
want  of  being  nigh  to  a  River  or  Pond,  that  they  were 
oblig'd  to  let  them  go  unbaptiz'd,  or  elfe  fprinkle  them  ; 
or  is  this  a  Conjcdlure  of  his  own,  to  countenance  his 
Prailice  ?  A  Conjedture  of  his  own  no  Doubt,  which  is 
of  no  Weight,  unlefs  it  had  been  fupported  by  fome  bet- 
ter Authority  than  his  hzre  fay-fo  ;  or  he  had  made  appear 
that  the  Apoftles  were  oblig'd  to  fprinkle  fome  of  their 
new  Converts,  for  want  of  Water  fufficient  for  Immer- 
fion ;  but  this  he  has  not  :  Neither  is  it  in  the  leaft:  pro- 
bable that  they  dipped  fome,  and  fprinkled  others ;  becaufe 
wherever  we  read  of  their  adminiftring  this  Ordinance, 
'tis  flill  exprefb'd  by  the  Word  Baptize.  Now  if  they 
had  ufed  different  Modes  of  Adminiftration  (as  every  one 
knov/s  that  dipping  2ind  fprinkling  are  very  different)  there 
is  all  the  Rcafon  in  the  World  to  believe  they  would  have 
been.  exprefTed  by  different  Words  j  but  feeing  the  fame 
Word  is  every  wiiCiC  ufed  on  this  Occasion,    it  plainly 

befpea  k 


(  138  ) 
befpcaks  their  Pra<Sice  was  unijerm,  i.  e.  that  they  bapti- 
zed all  by  Immerfion.  And  thofe  Places  where  the  liap- 
tizing  of  Perfons  is  but  juit  mentioned,  are  to  be  compa- 
red with  other  Places  of  Holy  Scriptuie,  which  give  a 
full  and  cleiir  Account  of  the  Mannt:r  and  Circumftances 
of  its  Adminiftration,  Upon  the  Whole,  I  can't  but  con- 
clude, that  Immerfion  is  the  Scriptural,  and  therefore  the 
only  Mode  of  Baptizing  ;  ana  that  what  Mr.  F.  offers 
upon  this  Head#  in  Favour  of  his  Practice,  is  weak  and 
inconclufive. 

We  come  to  the  third  Toplck,  or  Flead  of  Difcourfc 
which  Mr.  F.  calls  Scripture  Allujions^  Rom.  vi.  3,  4,  5. 
Know  ye  not^  that  Jo  many  of  us  as  were  baptized  into  'J  ejus 
Chrijly  were  haptixed  into  his  Death  ?  Therefore  we  are 
buried  xvith  him  by  Baptijm  into  Death  ;  that  like  as  Chriji 
was  ratfed  up  from  the  Dead  by  the  Glory  of  the  Father^ 
even  fo  we  alCo  Jhould  walk  in  Newnefs  of  Life.  For  if  we 
have  been  planted  together  in  the  Likenefs  of  his  Deaths  we 
/hall  be  aljo  in  the  Likenefs  of  his  Refurre£iion  j  compare 
Col.  ii.  12.  From  thefe  Words  we  urge,  that  the  End 
and  Defign  of  Baptifm  is  to  reprefent  the  Death,  Burial, 
and  Refurredtion,  of  Jefus  Chrift  ;  and  our  dying  unto 
Sin,  and  rifing  to  walk  in  Newiiefs  of  Life  ;  the  outward 
Sign,  or  Element,  is  Water,  the  only  and  proper  Mode,  is 
Immerfion,  buried  in  Baptifm. 

I  (hall  cite  the  Judgment  of  fome  Pasdo-baptifts,  out 
of  many,  which  favour  us  in  this  Point  j  and  certainly  'tis 
reafonable  to  think  there  muft  be  very  great  Clearnefs  in 
the  Cafe,  when  thofe  who  praftis'd  Pouring  or  Sprinkling, 
fhould  notwithftanding  grant  us  fo  much  as  they  do,  in 
their  Comments    upon  thefe  Words. 

The  Allembly  of  Divines  on  the  Place  ;  Buried  with 
him  in  Baptifm  :     '   !n  this  Phrafe  the  Apoftle  feemeth  to 

*  allude  to  the  antient  Manner  of  Baptifm,   which  was  to 
'  dip  the  Parties  baptized,    and  as  it  were  to  bury  them 

*  imder  the  Water  for  a  while,  and  then  to  draw  them 
'  out  of  it,  and  lift  them   up,  to  reprefent  the  Burial  of 

*  our  old  Man,  and  our  Refurredion  to  Newnefs  of  Life. 

The  Contmuers  of  PWs  Annotations,  fav,  '  He  (the 
'  Apoftle}  feems  here  to  allude  to   the  Manner  of  Bap- 

'  tiTiing 


(     139     ) 

*  iizing  in  thofe  warm  Eaftern  Countries,  which  was  to 
'  dip  O.X  plunge  the  Party  baptized,  and  as  it  were  to  bury 

*  him  fur  a  while  under  Water. 

Dr.  1'owtrfon  *  (cited  by  Mr.  Stcnnet)  treating  of  the 
Sacrament  ot  Baptifm,  liaving  fp^iken  «f  Water  in  Bap- 
tifm,  as  a  Sign  in  RefpeSf  of  thai  cleanfmg  ^tality  which 
natural  to  it,  adds  theie  Words  :  '  One  other  Parti- 
cular there  is,  wherein  I  have  faid  the  Water  of  Bap- 
tifm to  have  been  intended  as  a  Sign,  and  that  is  in  Re- 
fpciSl  of  that  Manner  o{  Apphsation  which  was  fome- 
times  ufed,  I  mean  the  dipping  or  plunging  the  Party 
baptized,  in  it,  a  Significatron  which  St.  Paul  WiWnot 
fufFer  thofe  to  forget,  who  have  been  acquainted  with 
his  Epijiles  :  For  with  Reference  to  that  Manner  of 
Baotizing,  we  find  him  affirming,  that  we  are  buried 
with  Chrijl  by  Baptijm  into  Deaths  that  like  as  Chriji 
was  raijcd  up  from  the  Dead.,  by  the  Glory  of  the  Father., 
evenfo  we  aijo  Jhould  walk  in  Newnefs  of  Life.,  &'c.  Rom. 
vi.  4. --To  the  fume  Purpofe,  01  rather  yet  more  clearly, 
doth  that  Apoftle  difcourfe,  where  he  tells  us  that  as  we 
are  buried  with  Chriji  in  Baptiffn^  fo  we  do  therein,  rije 
aijo  with  hirn^  through  the  Faith  of  the  Operation  of  God\^ 
who  hath  raifed  him  frotn  the  Dead.,  Gal.  ii.  12.  For 
what  is  this  but  to  fay,  that  as  the  Defign  of  Baptifm  was 
to  oblige  Men  to  conform  fo  far  to  Chrift's  Death  and 
Refurrediion,  as  to  die  unto  Sin,  and  to  hve  again  unto 
Righteoufnefs  :  So  was  it  performed  by  the  Ceremony 
of  Immerfion,  that  the  Perfon  immers'd,  might  by  that 
very  Ceremony,  whch  was  no  obfcure  image  of  a  Se- 
pulture., be  minded  of  the  precedent  Death,  as  in  like 
Manner  by  his  coming  again  out  of  the  Water,  of  his 
Rifing  from  that  Death  to  Life,  after  the  Example  of 
the  Inftitutor  thereof?' 
A  little  lower,  he  enquires  whether  the  Water  of  Bap- 
tifm ought  to  be  applied  by  hnme'fton,  or  by  that.,  or  an  Af- 
perfon  or  Effufion  ?  *  Which  (fays  he)  is  a  more  material 
'  Queftion,   than  it  is  commonly  deem'd  by  us,  who  have 

*  been  accuflomed  to  baptife  by  a  bare  EfFufion,  or  fprink- 

*  ling  of  Water  upon  the  Party.     For  in  Things  u  hich 

*  depend 
*  Explication  of  the  Catechifm  of  the  Chmch  of  England,  of  Bapt.  p.  ao. 


(    uo   C 

depend  for  their  Force,  upon  the  mere  Will  and  Plea- 
fure  of  him  who  inftituted  'em,  there  ou?ht,  no  doubt, 
great  Rega-d  to  be  had  to  th.'  Commands  of  him  vvho 
did  fo,  as  without  which  tlicre  is  n  »  Reafjn  to  prefuyne 
wefliall  receive  the  Benefit  of  that  Ceremony  to  wh.ch 
he  hath  been  pleafed  to  annex  it.  Now,  what  the 
Command  of  Chiift  v/as  in  rhis  Particular,  [Matt. 
xxviii.  19.)  cannc)t  he  doubted  ot  by  thofc  who  (hail 
coniidcr,  fir(}  :he  Words  of  Lh;  ift  concerning  it,  ard 
the  PradtiCfc'ofthofe  Times,  whether  in  ihe  Bapf.ifm  of 
'Jchn^  ot  of  our  Saviour  :  For  the  Words  of  Chrilt  are, 
that  they  ftiou.d  baptize  or  dip  thofe  whom  they  made 
Difciples  to  him  (tor  fo  no  doubt  the  Word  Baptixein 
properly  fignifies)  and  which  is  more,  and  not  (vithout 
its  Weight,  that  they  fhould  baptize  them  into  the 
Name  of  the  Father,  and  of  the  Son,  and  of  tiie  Holy 
Ghoft  ;  thereby  intimating  fuch  a  IVaJinng  as  fhould 
receive  the  Party  baptized,  within  the  very  Body  of  that 
Water,  which  they  were  to  baptize  him  with.  Tho* 
if  there  could  be  any  doubt  concerning  the  Sign  fication 
of  the  Words  in  themfelves,  yet  would  that  Dmbt  be 
removed,  by  confidering  the  Practice  of  thofe  Times, 
whether  in  the  Baptifm  of  'John^  or  of  our  Saviour. 
For  fuch  as  was  the  Practice  of  thofe  Times  in  Bap- 
ii'zjngy  fuch  in  Reafon  are  we  to  think  our  Saviour's 
Command  to  have  been  concerning  it,  efpeciaily  when 
the  Words  themfelves  incline  thut  Way  ;  there  being 
not  otherwife  any  Means,  either  for  thofe  or  future 
Times,  to  difcover  his  Intention  concerning  it.  Nov/ 
what  the  Prad^ice  of  thofe  7  imes  was  as  tothis  Particular, 
will  need  no  other  Proof  than  their  reforting  to  Rivers, 
and  fuch  like  Receptaclesof  Waters,  for  the  Performance 
of  that  Ceremony,  as  that  too,  becaufe  there  was  much 
Water  there.  P'or  fo  the  Scripture  doth  not  only  affirm 
concerning  the  Baptifm  of  "John  ;  J  but  both  intimates 
concerning  that  v^hich  our  Saviour  adminiflred  in 
f  "Judea  (becaufe  making  "John^s  Baptifm  and  his  to  be 
io  far  forth  of  the  fame  Sort)  andexpielly  affirms  con- 
cerning the   Baptifm  of  the  Eunuch  j  *    which  is  the 

only 
J  Matt,  iiu  5,  6,  13.      f  John  iiu  2Z,  23.      *  Afts  viii.  3?. 


(  HI  ) 
only  Chriftian  Baptifm  the  Scripture  is  any  thing  par- 
ticular in  the  Defcriprion  of  :  The  Words  of  St.  Luke 
being,  that  both  Philip  and  the  Eunuch  went  down 
into  a  certain  Water,  which  they  met  with  in  their 
Journey,  in  order  to  the  Baptizing  of  the  latter.  For 
what  need  would  there  have  been,  either  of  the  Baptijis 
rcforting  to  grsat  Confluxes  of  Water,  or  oi Philip  and 
the  Eunuch's  going  down  into  this,  were  it  not  that 
the  BapciTm  both  of  the  one  and  the  other,  was  to  be 
performed  by  an  Immerfion  ?  A  very  little  Water,  as 
we  know  it  doth  with  us,  fufHcing  for  an  Effujion  or 
Sprinkling.  But  befides  the  Words  of  our  bleffed  Sa- 
viour, and  the  concurrent  Pra<Stice  of  thofe  Times, 
wherein  chis  Sacrament  was  injiituted,  it  is  in  my  Opi- 
nion of  no  lels  Coniideratioi ,  that  the  Thing  fignified 
by  the  Sacrament  of  Baptifm,  cannot  other  wife  be  well 
reprefented,  tnan  by  an  Immerjion,  or  at  Icaft  by  fomc 
more  general  Way  of  Purification,  than  that  ot  Effufion 
or  Sprinkling.  For  tho*  pouring  or  fprinklingof  a  little 
Water  upon  the  Face,  may  fuffice  to  reprefent  an  inter- 
nal Wafhing,  which  feems  to  be  the  general  End  of 
Chrift's  making  Ufe  of  the  Sacrament  of  Baptifm,  vet 
can  it  not  be  thoiighr  to  reprefent  fuch  an  entire  Wafli- 
ing  as  that  of  neiv-born  infants  Wi.s,  and  as  Baptifm 
feems  to  be  intended  for  ;  becaufe  reprefented  as  the 
Laver  of  our  Regeneration  :  That,  tho'  it  do  not  re- 
quire an  Immerlion,  yet  requiring  fuch  a  general 
Wafhing  at  lead,  as  aiay  extend  to  the  whole  Body, 
ai  other  than  which  cannat  anfwer  its  Type,  nor  yec 
that  general,  tho'  internal  Purgation  which  Baptifm 
was  intended  to  '•eprefent.  1  he  C^me  is  to  be  faid  yet 
more  upon  the  Account  of  our  conforming  to  the 
Death  an:?  Rerurre£tion  of  Chrift,  which  we  learn 
from  St.  Paul,  to  have  been  the  Deftgn  of  Baptifm  to 
figni/y.  For  tho'  that  might  be,  and  was  well  enough 
reprefented  by  the  baptized  I'erfon's  being  buried  in 
Baptifm,  and  then  rijing  out  of  it  ;  yet  can  it  not  be 
faid  to  be  fo,  or  at  leafi  but  veiy  imperfe£fly,  by  the 
bare  pouring  out,  or  fprinkling  thebapiifmal  Water  on 
him  :     But  therefore,  as  there  is  fo  much  the  more 

Reafon 


(       142       ) 

Res  Ton  to  reprefent  the  Rite  of  Immerfion^  as  the  only 
LfoiTiMATK  Rite  of  Hptifm,  becanfe  the  only 
One  that  cm  aiifwer  the  Ends  of  its  lu/iitution^  and 
thof'e  'I  hings  which  were  to  hz fign'tfied  by  it  ;  foefpe- 
cially  if  ('ai  is  well  known,  and  undoubtedJy  of  great 
Force)  the  general  Praclice  of  the  pnmitive  Church 
was  agreeable  thereto,  and  the  Practice  of  rhe  Greek 
Chinch  to  this  very  Day.  For  who  can  think  either 
thiicne  or  the  oihi-r  would  have  been  fo  tenacious  of  fo 
troub-efome  a  Rite,  were  it  not,  that  they  were  well 
afTured,  as  they  of  the  primitive  Church  might  very 
well   be,    of  its  beino;  the   only    instituted  and 

LEGITIMATE    OnE      ' 

Tolerable  good  CcnaJ/u'^s^  confidering  they  come  from 
the  Pens  of  thi.fe  wh  ^  pr.clifed  Sprinkling,  l^o  thefe  I 
might  add  a  Cl'>iid  o(  Witnefles,  which  teftify  the  fame 
Thing,  in  Favour  of  what  we  protefs,  rcfpe6ting  the 
ancient  ami  fcriptural  Mode  of  Baptizing  ;  but  (lull  con- 
tent mv  fdf  at  prefent,  with  only  citing  the  Words  of 
Dr.  IVJjithy^  in  his  Paraphrafe  and  Commentary  on  the 
New  Tc/iarnent^  who  thus  expieflls  himfcit  on  Rom.  vi.  — 
JVi  are  buried  with  him  in  Baptifm.      '   It  being  exprefsly 

*  declared  here,  and  Col.  ii.  12.  lliat  we  are  buried  with 
'  Chrifl:  in  Baptifm,  by  being  buried  under  Water  ;  and 
'  the    Argument   to   oblige  us   to  a    Conformity   to  his 

*  Death  bvd\ingto  Sin,  bemg  taken  hOnce  ;  and  this 
'   Jmmcrfin  bemg  relig  ourtv  obferved  h\-  all  Chrijiians  for 

*  thirteen  Centuries^     and  approved  by  tnir  Chu'ch,    and 

*  the  Change   of  it  into  bp  rink  ling,    even  ii^th- 

*  out  any  Allowance  from  the  Auilior  of  this  Inst  IT  u- 

*  T  ION,  or  any  Licence  tVom  any  Council  of  the  Church., 
'  being  that  whicii    x.\\ti  Roman iji '(k\\\  urceth,     tojultify 

*  his  Refufal  of  the  Cup  to  tfie  Laity  ;  it  were  to  be 
"  wiftied   that    this  Cuftom   might   be   again  of  general 

*  Ufe.' 

And  as  Dr.  Gale  fa'  <;,  JVhat  follows  concerning  Afper- 
Jion.,  being  not  to  the  Purpofe^  /  omit  it. 

Let  us  now  attend  on  Mr.  F.  to  hear  what  he  has  to 
obje^^  againft  ua,  on  thi-  f lead. 

X.  Says  he,  Sacraments  are  not  natural  but  arbitrary 

^  Signs. 


(  H3  ) 
Signs.  AnJ.  I  cannot  but  wonder  what  Advantage  he 
thinks  to  gain  to  his  (Jaule  by  this  Obfervation  !  For  isit 
nof  allowed  by  all,  that  there  is  always  an  Analogy  or 
Refemblance  betwixr.  the  S'ign%  and  the  Things  fignified  ? 
Otheiwife  how  {hould  the  Signs  lead  us  to  the  Things 
fignified,  or  be  helpful  to  our  Faith  in  thofe  Things  ?  As 
all  facramental  Signs  are  appointed  of  God,  fo  alfo  what 
they  (hould  fignify  :  We  are  not  of  our  own  Heads  to 
imagine  this  or  the  other  to  be  fignified  by  them,  and 
I  then  adapt  the  Signs  to  the  Things  fuppofed  to  be  figni- 
f  fied,  different  from  their  firft  Inftitution.  Thus  in  the 
[  Cafe  before  us  :  Bapcifm  no  way  anfwers  with  what  the 
Apoftle  here  fets  forth,  but  by  Immerfion  ;  and  it  feems 
Mr.  F.  faw  this,  when  he  a(ks  us,  why  muft  Signs  bear 
fuch  a  natural  Refemblance  of  the  Things  by  them  figni  - 
fied  ?  intimating,  that  burying  the  Party  in  Baptifm,  and 
his  Rifmg  up  again,  hath  a  very  natural^  lively  and  fuit- 
able  Refemblance  of  the  Burial  and  Refurrecftion  of  Jcfus 
Chrift,  and  of  our  dying  to  Sin,  and  rifing  again  to  walk 
in  Ntwnefs  of  Life  ;  but  was  willing  to  turn  it  afide  by 
fome  Artifice  or  another.  Sacramental  Signs  are  Arbi- 
trary with  Refpe<5l  to  the  good  Will  and  Pleafiire  of  their 
Inftitutor  ;  but  it  does  not  therefore  follow,  they  bear  not 
a  natural  Refemblance  of  the  Things  fignified  by  them  ; 
nay  the  contrary  ismanifeft,  whatever  Mr.  F.  may  think 
proper  to  obje<9:  againft  it. 

2.   *  But  further  (fays  our  Author)  we  are  alfo  faid  by 

*  Baptifm   to  be  planted  together  in  the  Likenefs  of  Chriji^s 

*  Death.     Now  he  died  hanging  on  the  Crofs  ;  muft  we 

*  therefore  be  fix'd  on  a   Crois  when  baptized,     that  fo 

*  there  may  be  a  natural  Refemblance  ? 

Anf  The  Aflembly  of  Divines,  in  their  Annotation  on 
Rom.  vi.  5.  very  beautifully  and  pertinently  refute  this 
fneering   Objedlion  :    Planted  together  \    they  fay,     *  By 

*  this   elegant  Similitude,    the  Apoftle  reprefenteth   unto 
'  us,  that  as  Plants  engrafted,  receive  Moifture  and  Juice 

k      *  from  the  Stock,    whereby  they  fprout  out,    and    bear 
f      *  Fruit  .i  fo  we  receive  Vigour  from  Chrift,  whereby  we 

*  live  fpiritually,   and  bear  the  Fruit  of   good   Works  ; 
'  And  as  a  Plant  that  is  fet  in  the  Earth,  lyeth  as  dead 

and 


(     144     ) 

*  and  unmovable  for  a  Time,    but  after  fprlngs  up  and 

*  flourifheih  ,  To  ChiiU's  Body  lay  dead  for  a  vvliile  in  the 
'  Grave,     buifprun^^up   and  reflauriftied   in    his  Refur- 

*  redion  :     And  we  alfo^  when  we  are  bjpti%ed^  are  buried 
'  as  it  were  in  I  Voter  for  a  Time,    but  after  are  raifd  up 

*  to  Newnefs  cf  Life.' 

In  the  folLwmi/  Paragraph,  I  think  there  are  two  or 
three  Objections  thrown  up  together  :  i.  That  we  fhould 
prove  that  Dipping  was  thenufed.  2,  That  the  Apoftle  ' 
ufed  it  ;  and  3.  That  he  approved  it.  As  to  the  Firji, 
'tis  already  proven,  and  confirmed  by  the  joint  Gonfent 
of  divers  Teitimonies  of  Paedo-baptifts  themfelves.  2dly, 
w«  have  abundant  Reafon  to  conclude  the  Apoftle  ufed  it, 
becaufe  he  fets  tiimfelf  in  with  others  who  were  buried 
with  Chrifi  by  Baptifin,  Rom.  6.  and  3,  That  he  ap- 
proved of  Immeriion  ;  becaufe  he  puts  the  Roman  and 
Colofftan  Chriilians  in  Mind  of  their  Baptifm,  thereby  to 
pjomote  their  dying  to  Sin,  and  rifing  to  Newnefs  of  Life; 
which  wasfoclearlv  and  fuitably  reprefented,  when  they 
were  buried  with  Chnft  therein. 

Says  he,  *  If  an  Ailufion  to  a  Praflice  will  prove  the 
'  Approbation  and  Ufe  of  it,  then  we  can  prove  that  the 
'  j..me   Apoltle  both    ufed   and  approved   the  Olympiclc 

*  Games.'  Anf  We  don't  fay  it  will.  But  does  Mr. 
F.  think  this  to  be  a  parallel  Cafe  ?  Were  the  Olympick 
Games  ordain'd  of  God  r  Did  Chritt  authorife  them  ? 
Does  the  Apoftle  fay,  that  himfelf  and  other  Believers 
aRed  in  them  ?  D-jes  he  any  where  intimate  thefe  were 
defign'd  to  reprefent  a  Death  to  Sin,  i^c.  P  No,  not  at 
all  J  what  then  is  ihis  brought  for,  but  to  blindfold  the 
unwary  Reader  ? 

*  But  for  my  Part  (fays  he)  I  do  not  believe  the  Apo- 

*  file  alludes  to  the  Mode  of  Dipping,  in  th^  Expreflions 
'  of  being  buried  and  rifen  with  Chrilt  in  Baptifm.* 
^nf  And  wh;it  of  that  ?  why,  his  Unoelief  can't  make 
the  Word  of  God  to  be  of  none  £fFc6t,  tho'  it  mav  har- 
den fomc  others  111  their  like  Unbelief  ^lon^  with  him. 
'Tis  added,  '  any  more  than  1  beheve  that  he  alludes  to 
'  fome  Cuffom  cf  Chriflians  being  fallened  to  a  Crofs  in 

*  Baptifm  by  thofe  other  ExpreJiions,   of  being  planted 

*  toacther 


(     145    ) 

'  together  in  the  LIkenefs  of  his  Death  ;    for  I  can  fee 

*  no  more  Reafon  for  believing  the  one   than   the  other^ 

*  and  tlie  one  Practice   is  without  Proof  as  much  as 

*  the  oiher.'  J/if.  Were  there  any  fuch  Chrijiicins  ('as 
Mr.  F.  calls  them)  who  ufed  to  fa(ten  Peopie  to  a  Crofs 
in  Baptifm,  in  the  Apoftles  Days  ?  Or  d"es  he  read  ia 
Scripture,  of  any  1  hing  in  the  Gircumflances  of  Bap- 
tifm, that  inclines  him  to  think  there  is  as  much  Reaf  )n 
for  believing  the  one  as  the  other  ?  XVnat  a  Stock  of  Affu' 
ranee  is  here  diicovered,  when  he  tells  us,  That  the 
PraSfice  of  Dipping  Perror)s  in  iBaptifm,  is  without 
Procl,  as  much  as  falfening  thera  to  a  Crofs  in  Bapufm  ! 
I  think  it  is  hardly  worth  any  Man's  wJiile  (o  argue  with 
one,  who  won't  ftick  to  utter  fuch  undigcfted  Thoughts, 
^n  Defence  of  his  Cauie,  when  they  come  in  his  V\'ay  ! 
If  the  Cafe  be  as  A4r.  F.  affirms,  vvhat  figniKes  our  Bibles 
to  us,  or  th;t  we  Ihould  be  told  that  John  baptized  the 
Multitudes  in  the  River  of  y.jrrt'^rw,  and  that  Chrifl-,  af- 
ter he  was  baptized  in  Jordan,  ftral^htway  came  up  out 
of  the  Water,  i^c.  But  let  the  candid  Reider  judge  if 
there  is  not  a  great  deal  more  Proof  for  tmrnerfion,  thari 
there  is  for  faftening  People  to  a  Crofs  in  iJaptit-n,  wheii 
there  is  not  the  leafl  Intimation  of  the  latter,  in  all  the 
PafTages  which  fpeak  of  Baptifm. 

It  the  Cafe  be  as  Mr.  F.  aflertsj  How  came  fuch  a 
great  Body  of  eminent  Divines  to  be  fo  miftaken  in  this 
Matter  ?  Reafon  tells  us^  that  there  rtiuft  be  not  only  a 
mere  Probability,  but  fomevery  great  Certainty  in  the  Cafe; 
before  thofe  who  pradtis'd  Sprinklings  would  confefs 
that  Dipping  was  the  ancient  Mode  of  Baptizing,  contra- 
ry to  their  own  Prafiice,  Befides  Mr,  F.  would  do  well 
to  confider,  that  he  has  not.  given  lis  one  Inftance  where 
Baptizo  is  rendred,  or  fignifies  to  pour  or  fprinkle. 

He  proceeds  to  account  for  the  Apoftle's  uhng  fuch  fi- 
gurative Expreffions,  and  tells  us,    <  That  Chnft  being 

*  the  Covenant  Head,    and  Reprefentative  of  his  Ele<St^ 

*  they  are  faidto  do  and  fuffer,  what  he  did  and  fuffered 
f  in  their  ftead,    becaufe  reprefented  by  him,    and    have 

*  Communion  in  the  Benefits  of  his  Obedience  and  Suf- 

*  feriiigs,    therefore  they  are  faid  to  be  crucified   witH 
ehrifti  to  be  dead  with  him,'  and  buried  and  I'ikn  witH 


r  146  ) 

*  him,  yea  and   to  fit  with   him  in    heavenly  Places.* 

Anf.    The  Death,   Burial,  and  Refu  rredtion  cf  Chrift, 
togetiicr  with  our    Death   to   Sin,    and  Refi;rie£lion  to 
Nevvncfs  of  Life,    are  the  grea'  Things  which  we  affirm 
to  be  fignified  by  Baptifm  :     Now  we  lee  in  thcfe  fore  ci- 
ted Plates,  how  beautifuHv  thefe  Things  are  let  forth  in 
the  Sign  ;     Buried  with  Cbnj}  in  Bnptijm,    wherein  alfo 
you  are  rifen  with  him  through  the  Faith  of  the  Operation 
ofGod^  who  hath  rai fed  him  from  the  Dead.      Mr.  F.  muft 
either  deny   that   ihe  Apoftle   meant  Water  Baptii'm   in 
this  Place,    or  elfe  be  forc'd  to  fhujjle  and  twijl  to  evade 
the  Force  of  his  Wo-^ds,    which  hold  forth  a  1'}  mbolical, 
or  baptifrnal   Burial,    and    biptilmal    Rifing  ;    or  elfe  it 
could  not  t>e  faid,   burled  with  Chrift  in  Baptifm  -which 
cannot  be  but  by  dipping  the  Party  into  Water,  and  ri- 
fing up  again  :  '  Buried  with  Chrift  in  Baptifm.,    wherein 
alfo  you  are  rifen  with  him  :    Thefc  Exprcfnons  uf  the  holy 
Aooftle,  bein?;  f  >  perfedly  agreeable  with  the  Pradtice  of 
John,  who  baptized  Perfons  in  the  River  Jordan,    and  in 
Fnon.,  where  there  was  much  Water  ;    bting  alfo  con- 
firmed by  the  beautiful  and  illuftrious  Example  of  our  a- 
dored  Lord  and  Saviour  Jesus  Christ,    who  was 
baptized  himfelf  in  Jordan,  do  fufficientlv  refute  the  Ob- 
jedlions  of  our  Oppon.ents,  and  fully  confirm  our  Faith  in 
this  Point,  That  Immerfion,    and  no  other,    is  the  only 
proper  Scriptural  Mode  of  Baptifm.     VVe  are  alfo  confi- 
dent, tho'  God  fufri:u-s  his  Truth  to  be  long  dcfpifed,  arid 
treated  by  manv  with  Contempt  and  Difdam,  that  yet  in 
his  own  due   Time,    he   will   arife,    and  plead  his  own 
Caufe,  to  the  Joy  and  Satisfaction  of  all  his  People. 

Mr.  F.  may  <'ec  briefly  our  Grounds  for  our  Faith  and 
Pradice  ;  and  if  we  are  guilty,  as  he  charges  us,  of  ex- 
cluding the  Protedant  Churches  on  thefe  Grounds,  let 
him  anfwer  us  in  this  Point,  whether  it  be  our  Duty  to 
conform  to  the  Pradice  of  thofc  Churches,  who  hold 
Sprinkling  to-be  Baptifm,  or  to  the  Word  of  God, 
which  holds  forth  Immerfion  to  be  the  proper  Mode  of  ad- 
jniniftring  this  holy  Ordinance. 

Having  proven  the  Mode  of  Baptifm,  from  the  Signi- 
fication of  tlie  Word  Baptizo,  from  the  Piadice  of  the 
priraitive  Times,    or  bgripture  hxamples,    and   from 

Scripti*re 


f   147   ) 

Scripture  Allufion?,  to  be  Immerfion  ;  and  withil,  refu- 
ted Mr.  F s  Objedions  againft  it  ;  I  need  to  be  but  verjr 
brief  in  Remarking  on  whAt  follows. 

His  fecund  Aflcrtion  is,    *  That  the  Scriptures  alfFord 

*  clearer  Grounds  to  us,  in  Favour  of  our  Mode  of  Bap- 

*  tifm,  than  to  our  Opponents  againfl  it.'  Say  you  fo  ? 
Then  pray   let   us  examine  thofe  Grounds  :      ifl:,     '  It 

*  Teems  to  be  prophefied  of  in  i/i/.  lii.    15.     He  foall  fprin- 

*  kle  many  Nations.     I  don't  fee  one  folid  Reafon  that  can 

*  be  advanc'd  againft  our   referring,  it  to  the  Water  of 

*  Baptifm,  as  well  as  to  the  Blood  of  Ghrift,  and  the 
'  Do£lrine  of  theGofpel.'  Reply.  I  remember  he  informs 
us  at  ti^e  Beginning:,  that  he  intended  his  Perjormanci 
for  the  Ufe  of  the  Co.nmon  People  ;  and  truly  they  mult 
be  fuch,  and  of  whufe  Intellectuals  he  has  no  Reafon  to 
think  any  Thing  but  what  is  mean  and  contemptible, 
or  elfe  that  they  ar€  already  fully  prepofiefs'd  with  his 
Opinion,  who  will  believe  that  this  Text  affords  a  clear- 
er Ground  for  Sprinkling  in  Baptifm,  than  the  Places  I 
have  quoted  do  for  hnmcrfion.  The  Folly  and  Im.perti- 
rency  of  our  Opponents  in  citing  this  Place,  with  this 
Intent,  can't  be  fuiiiciently  deteSied :  %  A  Text  tbaC 
hath  no  Manner  of  Relation  to  the  Mode  of  Baptifm  ; 
nor  any  where  referred  to  in  all  the  New-Teftament,  on 
fuch  an  Occafion.  Let  Mr.  F.  fliew  us  the  Place  if  he 
can,  which  proves  that  this  was  fulfilled,  by  fprinkling 
the  Nations  with  Water,  as  he  fuggefts  ;  or  ceafe  to  mif- 
guide  the  Comtnon  People^  by  wreding  and  {training 
Texts  of  Scripture,  to  ferve  his  Purpofe,  In  a  Word, 
I  can't  but  fully  agree  with  the  Reverend  znd  judicious 
Mr.  Gill,    *   faying,     *  Who  in   the  World    could  ever 

imagine,  that  the  Or<iinance  of  Water- baptifm,  with 
the  Mode  of  its  Adminiflration,  fnould  be  intended 
here  ?  A  Man  muft  have  his  Imagination  prodigiouflf 
heated  indeed,  and  his  Mind  captivated  with  a  mere 
Jingle  of  Words,  that  can  look  upon  fuch  Proofs  as 
thefe,  fecht  out  of  the  Old  Teflament,  as  demonfcra- 
tive  Ones  oi  the  true  Mode  of  Baptising  under  the 
New. 

K  2  «  2dh\ 

%  Vid.  Kir,  Dickinfon^s  Do£V.  of  Regeneration  vin^.  Pi  4©  41.— •»     *  ^t^ 
feftee  of  tfee  aniient  Mede  ef  Baptising,  p=  x§i 


(    h8    ) 

'  ^dty^     The  Scriptures  give  us  Examples  of  fevera? 

*  Perfons  who  feem  to  have  been  baptized  by  Pouring 

*  or  Sprinkling,  more  probably  than  by  Dipping,  as  the 
'  three  Thoufand  in  Ads  ii.  41.'  Anf.  But  is  there  not 
a  far  greater  Probability  that  the  three  Thoufand  were 
baptized  by  Immerfion  according  to  the  Meaning  of  the 
Word,  and  after  the  fame  Manner  that  others  virere,  of 
■wh  im  we  have  a  fuller  Account  than  is  here  given  ? 
The  Arguments  raifcd  in  Favour  oi  Sprinkling  from  this 
Text,  are  very  inconfiderablc,  and  too  weak  by  far  to 
bear  the  Strefs  laid  upon  them  ;  for  there  is  nothing  ap- 
pears to  the  Contrary,  but  the  Seventy  Difciples  were 
there  together  with  the  twelve  Apollles-- feeing  the 
l^umher  of  Names  together  were  about  an  Hundred  and 
1'u:cniy^  A£ls\.  iv  And  thefe  were  together  at  the, 
"Dxy  oi  Pentecojl^  Jds  u.  I.  Hence  it  appears  not,  but 
there  were  Adminiftrators  fufficient  to  difpatch  the 
Work  in  a  little  Time.  As  to  any  further  Objedions 
thrown  in  the  Way,  they  are  either  anfwered  already, 
or  carry  in  them  no  Weight  worth  any  One's  while  to 
inake  any  Remarks  on  them. 

*  Again  ('fays  he)    Cornelius  and  his  Company  afford 

*  us  a    good  Argument,    Jds  \.  47.  Peter's  Words  arc 

*  memorable.  Can  any  forbid  IVater,    that  thefe  Jhould  not 

*  be  baptized  ?     He  does  not  fay.    Can  any  hinder  to  go 

*  to  a  Water,  but.  Can  any  faibid  Water  ?  which  is   an 

*  Intimation  that  Water  was  to  be  brought.'  Anf.  Here 
is  nothing  in  this  Inftance  neither,  that  demonftrates 
that  Cornelius  and  his  Company  v/txt/prinkled  ;  for  thofe 
Places  of  Scripture  which  do  but  juft  mention  any  'thing, 
are  to  be  interpreted  by  others,  which  fpeak  more  clear 
and  full  of  the  fame  Thing  ;  An  Injlance  of  this  we  have 
before  us,  Verfe  48,  compared  with  AS^s  xix.  5.  He 
commanded  them  to  be  baptised  in  the  Name  of  the  Lord 
(Jefus)  May  one  hence  conclude,  becaufe  the  Father 
and  Holy  Ghoft  are  not  mention'd,  that  therefore  thefe 
Perfons  were  not  baptized  in  the  Name  of  the  Father  and 
Holy  Ghort,  according  to  Mat.  xxvJii.  19.  but  in  the 
Name  of  the  Son  only  ?  Not  at  all.  So  neither  can  arty 
one  conclude,  tiiat  they  had  the  Ordinance  adminiftred 
wntQ  thi;m  in  any  other  Manntr,    than  according  to  the 

plain 


(     149    ) 

plain  zn&  full  Account  given  of  this  Matter^  in  other 
Places  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  viz.  by  Immerfton^  or  being 
buried  in  Baptifm. 

Mr.  F.  fays,  *  All  Circumftances  concur  to  (hew  that 

*  5W  or  P^«/ was  not  plung'd,  ASfs'xx.   i8,   19.  He  re- 

*  ceived  Sight,  arofe,  and  was  baptized,  received  iVIeat 
'  and  was  ftrengthned,    all  feems  to  have  been  done  ia 

*  the  Place  where  Ananias  found  him,  viz.  in  the  Houfe 

*  of  Judas  of  Damafcus*  Anf.  There  is  a  very  good 
Circumftance  to  conclude  from,  that  Paul  was  not 
fprinkled  ;  becaufe  'tis  exprefly  faid,  he  arose,  and 
was  baptized  :  Now  if  the  Ordinance  had  been  adminif- 
tred  by  Pouring  or  Sprinklirg^  there  appears  no  Neceffity 
for  his  moving  or  rijing  from  the  Place  where  he  fat  or 
lay  :  But  what  puts  the  Matter  out  of  Doubt  is,  that 
the  Apoflle  Paul  puts  himfelf  in  with  others,  who  are 
buried  with  Chriji  by  Baptifniy  Rom.  vi.  4. 

'  Again  in   Ails  xvi.  33.  the  Jaylor  and    his  Houfe 

*  were  baptized  after  Midnight  ;    nor  have  we  any  Rea- 

*  fon  to  fuppofe  they  all  went  out  of  the  City,    nor  yet 

*  out  of  the  Houfe  for  Water  to  plunge  in  ;    but  rather 

*  were  there  baptized,    where  they  were  converted,  and 

*  that  by  Pouring  or  Sprinkling.  R^ply.  How  Mr.  Fj 
can  allow  himfelf  the  Liberty  tp  argue  after  the  Manner 
he  does,  from  the  Paffage  concerning  the  Jaylor's  Bap- 
tifm, as  if  he  had  been  fprinkled  in  his  Houfe,  I  can't 
tell  :  For  when  we  look  into  it,  there  is  jiothing  therein 
that  favours  fuch  a  Notion,  but  quite  the  Contrary  :  For, 
ift.  The  Jaylor  brought  PW  and  SzVa;  out  of  Prifon, 
Vcrfe  30.  and  'tis  very  probable  that  he  took  them  into 
his  Houfe,  becaufe  they  fpake  unto  him  the  Word  of  the 
Lord,  and  to  all  that  were  in  his  Houfe.  idly.  The  Jay- 
lor and  his  Houfliold,  were  not  baptized  in  the  Prifon^ 
nor  in  his  Houfe  ;  for  after  he  and  his  Houfhold  were 
baptized,  'tis  very  exprefs,  that  he  Jjrought  Paul  2indi  Si^ 
las  into  his  Houfe.  All  Circumftances  being  duly  conli- 
dered,  do  abundantly  refute  what  our  Opponents 
urge    from    this    Paff'age^     in    Favour    of    Sprinkling. 

Having  gone  through  in  examining  the  Places,  which 
Mr.  P.  has  advanced  to  prove  Sprinkling  to  be  the  right- 
Modt  Qi  Baptifm  s  I  find  there  does  ngt  appear  ajij  Thing 

K  3  *f 


(  ISO  ; 

of  Fo«"cc  or  Weight,   to  countt.nancc  that  Pra(^lce  ;  there 
is  not  one  Inflance  from  Scripture,   brought  to  us  to  con- 
firm it  ;    nor  any  Conlequerice  fufficient  to  fupport  the 
Behef  of  a  feeking;  Perfjn,  that  Baptifm  was  lb  aJminif- 
tred  ;    yet  Mr.  f.  his  the  Vanify  to  fay,    tiiat  th^y  out-da 
us  even  in  Scripture  Examples  j  v<hen,  in  the  mean  Time, 
lie  has  not  produc'd  one  Example  of  any   Perfon's  being 
fprinkled'—ViUt  we  read  of  Multitudes  who  were  baptized 
in  the  River  "Jordan  ;    and  amongft  others,    our  blefled 
Saviour  ;     who  left  us  an  Example^     that  we  Jhould  follow 
his  Steps.     I  rind  alfo,  that  Mr.  F.  is  noc  certain  of  it  him- 
ielf,  that  thofe  Perfons  he  refers  to  were  fprinkled,  only 
that  it  is  much  more  probable  that  they  were  fprinkled  than 
dipt  ;  which  cannot  be,    unlefs  we  had  plainer  Circum- 
ftances  and  Evidences  in  Favour  of  Spnniciing,     than  w« 
have  of  Dipping,  or  overwhelming  ;    which  we  find  not. 
It  is  therefore  not  only  probable,    but  certain,     tiiat  Hap- 
tifin  was  adminiltred  to  them,    after  the  fame  Manner  it 
■was  to  Chrift  himfelf,  and  Multitudes  of  others,  vi%.  by 
Jmmerfton.     T   do    therefore    very   fretly   appeal    to    the 
'Judgment  of  any  Reader,    who  is  not  refolved  to  hold 
Sprinkling  to  be  the  true  Mode  of  Baptizing,     right  or 
wrong,    whether  A4r.  .F.   ha'th  made  good  his  AfFertion, 
viz.     That  he  has  clearer  Grounds  from  Scripture  for 
Sprinkliiig,  than    we  have    for    Dipping,    in   Baptifm  ? 
when  he  has  not  given' any  Inftances  of  it,  as  we  have  of 
Perfons  who  were  formerly  buried  in  Baptifm  ;    and  *tis 
therefore  to  be  adminiftrcd  by  Immerfion  flill,    wherein 
they  arife  to  walk   in  Newnefs  of  Life.     People  ought 
alfo  to  confider  that  the  Ways  and  Appointments  of  God, 
are  not  to  be  chang'd  and  alter'd  by  Men,  according  to 
their  Fancies  and  Inclinations   ;     even  tho'  good  Mea 
ihould  do  {i.^.,  or  practife  what  is  not  according  to  the  ori- 
ginal   Pattern    (as   in   the  Cafe  of  Sprinkling  inflead  of 
Dipping)   they  are  in<hat  not  to  be  followed,   nor  depend- 
ed upon  :  'Tis  every  One's  Duty  to  fearch  the  Scripture, 
to  knew  who  are  the  Subjedls,  and  what  is  the  Mode  of 
Baptifm,  and  prailife  accordingly. 

Mr.   F.  telk  us,    *  If  the  Scriptures  Jo  fpeak  lefs  ex- 

*  predv  of  this  Point,  it  is  to  teach  us,    that  a  peculiar 

*  Mode  15  not  cfiential  to  the  Ordinance,    as  our  Oppo- 

'  ncnts 


(    isr    ) 

*  nents  fondly  imagine  if  to  be/     Fiaelv  fpoken  !    If  a 
peculiar  Mode  is  not  effential  to   this  Odinjnce,    how 
come  Mr.  F.  to  affert,  that  Baptifm  h  rightly  z-\m\m{iitd. 
bv  pouring  or  fprinkiing  Water  upon   the   Perfon  bapti- 
Eed  ?      And  what  m.ikts  h:m  foftrenuous  in  Vindication 
of  Sprinkling,  if  Baptifm  may  be  adminiftred  either  Way, 
or  any  Way  ?     And  what  Colour  of  Realon  can  our  v^p- 
ponents  have  for  their  Endeavours  to  expofe  us  to  the 
World,  by  their  bafo  Infinuations  that  Immerfi'.n  is  unh-- 
cent,  immodejl,  and  tends  to  Murder  and  Adultery,   if  it  is 
an  indifferent  Thing  which  Way  the  Ordinance  is  admi- 
niftred ?    Our  Mode  is  certainly  right,  according  to  their 
own  Way  of  Arguing.      I  look  on  this  FaiTage  now  before 
me^    to   be  an  Evidence  of  what  we  profefs  to  be  the 
Truth  ;  for  had  it  been  otherwife,  I  doulft  not  but  Mr. 
F.  would   readily  affirm  Sprinkli,ng  to  be  the  cK/y;)^r«/?«r 
Mode  of  Baptifm  :    But  by  infinuating  the  Cafe  to  be 
doubtful  ('which  is  the  Method  in  general  of  thofe  who 
would  either  introduce,    or  countenance  talfhoodj    he 
might,  the  lefs  fufpeded,  plentifully  fling  his  Dirt  upon, 
TivA  Jirenuoujly  oppofe  the  Scriptural  Mode  of  Baptizing  ; 
and  labour,   at  the  fame  Time,    to  eibblifli  his  Pradfice 
to   be  the  only  proper  Mode  of  Baptifm.     But  can  any 
Man  who  reads  the  Scripture,    think  there  is  no  Matter 
how  Baptifm  is  done  ;    and  conclude  with  Mr.  F.  that  it 
'   is  enough  if  it  be  done  with  IVater  ;  but  no  Matter  how  the 
Water  is    ufcd,  or  .to  what  Part  of  the  Body  it  be  ap- 
plied ?   Whatever  Mr.  F.   (or  any  other  j  may  think,  we 
are  fure  God  never  injlituttd  any  Ordinance  to  be  carried 
cnjufl-as  Mens  changeable  Fancies,  and  diff- rent  Noti- 
ons, might  happen  to  lead  them,    in  the  Admmiftration 
of  it  ;  for  if  he  had,  it  would  be  to  open  a  Door  to  endlefs 
Difcords,  Variance  and  Confuuons,  amongft  his  Crea- 
tures, and  no  Rule  or  Standard  left    them  ever  to  con- 
vince each   other,   or  to  decide  their  unavoidable  and  re- 
medilefs  Controverfies,   and  DifFerences  ;  which  a  God 
of  Order,  never  did. 

Now  feeing  Mr.  Finlefs  AfTertion  natively  leads  tt% 

fuch  Abfurditi'es,  the  Truth  is,  That  fome  peculiar  Mode 

is  efTential  to  Baptifm  ;    and  by  all  that  has  yet  appeared, 

that  Mode  is  Imtnerfm,    or   Dipping  ;   Therefore  our 

K  4  pleading  \ 


(      152      ) 

pleading  for  it,  does  in  Juftice  deferve  a  better  Name, 
than  fond  Imagination.  Further,  Wliy  (hould  it  be 
urg'd  that  a  proper  Sunject  is  ein^ntial  to  Baptifni,  but  a 
proper  pecuhar  Mode  not  eflential  ?  Can  any  one  fee 
the  Reafon  why  the  former  lliould  be  fo,  but  not  the 
htter  ?  When  both  are  fufficientiy  revealed  in  Scripture, 
equally/  plain  to  any  one  who  u  iU  not  thro'  Prejudice,  or 
fuchlike,   fnut  hii  Eves  againit  an  evident  Truth.     And, 

Th  .'  It  may  not  be  very  reli/hing  to  the  Palates  of  our 
Opponents,  yet. we  are  no^  afraid  to  tell  them,  that 
^htnthQv  fprinklezn  L,faKt,  they  obferve  neither  the 
poocr  Mod.-,  nor  have  ihe  proper  Subjea  of  Baptifm  ; 
and  '.IS  but  "ufing  the  Name  of  the  ^7^0/^^/^  Tr  inity 
in  a  Wa.'  never  appointed  by  God,  which  can  be  no- 
thing  fiioit  of  taking  his  Holy  Name  in  vain. 

8a)  s  he,    *  As  to  the  C^iantity  of  Water,  we  are  told 

*  no  more  of  it,    than  how  much  Bread  and  Wine  fhall 

*  be  ufed  in  the  other  Sacrament." 

Jnf.  As  in  the  Lord's  Supper  fo  much  5r^^^and  Wine 
is  neceflary,  as  will  anfwer  to  the  facramental  Anions  of' 
Eating  and  Drinking  ;  fo  in  IBaptihn,  there  is  a  Nece/Ti. 
ty  of  (o  much  Water  as  will  be  fufficient  to  cover  the 
Per  fan  in  ;  for  John  was  baptizing  in  Enon.,  hecaufe  there 
was  tfiuch  JVater  there.  ^        ■      '  , 

3  //>•,  Says  our  Author,    '  Our  Mode  fully  anfwers  the 

*  Ends  of  Baptifm,  and  is  moft  fuitable  and  fignificant/- 
Reply^  God  will  have  tiie  M7/7;2^r  to  be  obferved,  as  well 
as  the  End  J  as  we  fee  in  that  Inrtarceof  his  Difpleafure" 
againft  IJrad\,  when  they  were  about  to  bung  home  the 
Ailc  upon  a  Cart  5  V^zu  indeed  was  fm^tten  for  his  own 
Error  ;  but  that  was  not  all,  for  that  fore.  I^iialter  ;  ffec- 
ted  the  Congregation  3  and  David  underitood  by  that 
Stroke,  that  they  were  wrong  in  the  Manner  of  carrying 
the  Ark  upon  a  Cart,  whereas  it  ought  to  have  been 
brouo;ht  on  the  Shoulders  of  the  P>i^p  and  Levites. 
I  Chron.  xv.  13.  For  becauje  ye  did  it  not  at  the  Firjl^ 
ihe  Lord  our  God  made  a  Breach  upon  us,  /or  that  we 
fought  him  not  after  the   D  u  5  '  Or D  E  R . 

Might  thev  not  as  well  argue  then,  if  the  Ark  was 
brought  home,  what  Matter  which  Wav  it  was  done,  if 
It  anjwen  the  End  i   jujft  as  our  Qpponeuts  now  do,  that 

Sprinkling 


(    153    ) 

Sprinkling  anfwcrs  the  Ends  of  Baptifm  ?  But  when  the 
Lord  hath  ordered  otherwife,  that  Mode  only  is  moft 
fuitable  and  fignificant,  which  is  according  to  his  reveal- 
ed Will  and  Appointment  :  Regard  alfo  rauft  be  had  to 
the  due  Order  or  Manner  of  our  Obedience  to  God  in 
any  Ordinance,  as  well  as  to  the  Ends  of  it  ;  otherwife 
Perfons  (even  gracious)  expofe  themfelves  to  the  fmart- 
ing  Corredions  of  God's  Hand,  for  their  Difregard 
of  his  pofitive  Inftitutions,  or  Negle£i  of  obfei'ving  the 
due  Otder  required  in  fubmitting  to  them,  A  few  Drops 
of  Water  wont  ferve  in  the  Admmiftration  of  Baptifm, 
when  Immerfion  is  prox'en  to  be  the  Mode  according  to 
the  Word  of  God  ;  and  allowed  by  many  Paeuo-baptift 
Authors,  to  be  the  Way  of  Baptizing  in  Apoltglic 
Times  :  Seeing  the  Ordinance  is  delign'd  to  reprefent 
the  Burial  and  Refurrection  of  Chrift,  and  our  Death  to 
Sin,  and  Rifing  to  Newnefs  of  Life  ;  thefe  Ends  can't  be 
anfwered,  but  by  Immerfion  3  buried  with  Chriji  in 
Baptijm. 

*  1  hat  Mode  is  moft  fuitable,  which  can  be  praiSifed 
<  without  Danger  of  Health  in  any  1  ime  of  the  Year,- 
•  without  Immodefty  or  Indecency  to  any  Perfon,  be- 
^  fore  any  Company,  upon  any  Occafion,  or  in  any 
'  Place  where  Conveniency  requires.'  Jnf.  It  was  a 
great  Part  of  ^vr<j<Jtftfm's  Politicks,,  to  fecure  the  People 
in  his  Intereft,  by  telling  them,  //  is  too  much  for  you  to 
go  up  tojerufalem*.  q.  d.  Ton  need  not  endanger  your 
Lives  and  Healths^  by  fuch  fatiguing  Journeys  and  Travels, 
'tis  too  much  for  you---fee  here  is  an  eafy  Method  and  Way  of 
Worfnp  for  )ou,-  Pray  what  does  Mr.  F.  mean  by  hi* 
Inhnuation  that  Dipping  is  dangerous,  and  prejudicial  to 
People's  Healths  ?  unlefs  he  had  given  Inftances  of  Per- 
fons whofe  Health  had  been  injur'd  by  it  ;  but  this  he  has 
not,  and  I'm  perfuaded  cannot  :  'Tis  nothing  therefore 
but  a  mere  Bugbear,  to  fright  his  Admirers  from  giving 
due  Obedience  to  Jefus  Chrift,  in  this  facred  Ordi- 
nance :  And  hereby  he  labours  to  continue  an  eafy  (but 
falfe)  Way,  in  direa  Oppofition  to  the  beautiful  Way 
appointed  of  God.  I  may  here  add  what  Mr.  Gill  f 
fays  on  the  like  Occafion,    *  If  it  is  the  Duty  of  Perfons 

*  to 

;*  %  Kings  xii.  aS.  f  Antient  Mode  of  Baptiasiog,  pag.  7S' 


(154     ) 
to  be  baptized,    it  Is  their  Duty  to  be  plunged  ;   for 
there   is  no   true  Baptifm  without  it  ?     Rut  what,  in 
the  Depth  of  Winter  ?     Why  not  ?     What   Damage 
is  like  to  come  by  it   ?     Our  Climate  is  not  near    fo 
cold  as  Mufcovy^     where  they  always  dip  their  Infants 
in  Baptifm,    to  this  very  Day  ;    as  does  alio  the  Greek 
Church  in  all  Parts  of  the  World.     But  what,    plunge 
Perfons   when  under  Confumptions,     Catarrh^    (sV  ? 
Why  not  ?  Perhaps  it  may  be  of  Ufe  t;>  them,   for  the 
Reftoration  of  Health  ;    and  its  being  perfoi  mcd  on  a 
facred  Account,    can  never  be  any  Hindrance  to  it. 
Whoever  reads  Sir  John  Floyer's  Hiftory  of  Cold  Bath- 
ingy    and  the    many   Cures   that  have  been  performed 
thereby,  which  he  there  relates,    will  never  think  that 
this  is  a  fufficient  Objection  againft  Plunging  m  Bap- 
tifm ;    which  learned  Phyfician,    has  alfo  of  late  pub- 
lifhed  An  Effay  to  re/iore  the  Dipping  of  Infants  in  their 
Baptifm  ;  which  he  argues  for,  not  only  from  the  Signi- 
fication of  Baptifm,     and   its    Theological  End,     but 
likewife  from  the  Medicinal  Ufe  of  Dipping,    for  pre- 
venting and  curing  many  Dii^empers.     If  it  may    be 
ufeful  for  the  Health  of  tender  Infants,  and  is  in  many 
Cafes  now  made  Ufe  of,  it  can  never  be  prejudicial  to 
grown  Perfons.     He  argues  from  the  Liturgy  and  Ru- 
brick  of  the  Church  of  England^    which  requites  Dip' 
ping  in   Baptifm,    and  on\y/ z)\ow5  pouring  of  IVaterm 
Cafe  of  Weaknefs,    and  never  fo  much  as  granted  a 
PermiiTion  for  Sprinkling.     He  proves  in  this  Book, 
and  more  largely  in  his  Former,    that  the   conftant 
Pradice  of  the  Church  of  England^  ever  lince  the  Plan- 
tation of  Chriflianity,     was   to  dip  or  plunge  in  Bap- 
tifm ;     which  he  fays  continued  after  the  Reformation, 
until  King  £<^«^rtry/ the  Sixth's  Time,  and  after  :  Nay, 
that    its  Difufe   has   been  within  this  Hundred  Years. 
And  here  I  can't  forbear  mentioning  a  Paflage  of  his, 
to  this  Purpofe,  Our  Fonts  are  built   (fays  he)    with  a 
fufHcient   Capacity   for  dipping  of  Infants,    and  they 
have  been  fo  ufed  for  Five  Hundred  Years  in  England^ 
both    Kings   and  common   People  have  been  dipped  ; 
but  now  our  fonts  Itand  in  our  Churches  as  Monu^ 

inent$> 


(     155    ) 

*  ments,    to  upbraid  us  with  our  Change  or  NegleiSl  of 

*  our  hzptifnvA  ImTfierfton.     And  I  wifn  he  had  not  Rea- 

*  fonto  lay  as  he  does,  that  Sprinkl  ng  was  firft  introduc'd 

*  by  the  AfFembly  of  Divines  in  1643,   by  a  Vote  of  25 

*  againft  24,    and  eftablifli'd  hy  an  Ordinance  oi  Parlia- 

*  ment  in  1644/ 

As  to  Mr.  i^'s  Suggeftion,  that  Dipping  is  immodejf 
and  indecent  ;  it  mult  be  or.ly  for  want  of  better  Argu- 
ment ;  for  if  he  has  ever  hen  the  Ordinance  admini- 
ftred,  he  muft  acknowledge  it  was  done  with  all  Modefly 
and  Decency  becoming  the  Solemnity  j  if  not,  he  fhould 
not  be  fo  ready  to  take  up  an  111- report  againft  his 
Neighbours,  and  fpread  if  abroad  upon  hear-fay,  frora 
fome  malicious  and  ill-difpofed  Perfuns,  who  are  not 
backward  to  reproach  the  mofl  decent  and  mo  dell  A6ts 
of  religious  VVorfliip,  at  their  Pleafure. 

'  ^thly^  That  the  Mode  which  our  Opponents  contend 

*  for,     is  loaded    witli    Inconvenience,    and  chargeable 

*  with  Abfuidities.' 
What  are  they  ?      Why, 

*  They  either  dip  Perfons  naked,    or  not  naked  :    If 

*  naked,  'tis  evidently  immodeft,    an  Incentive  to  Un- 

*  cleannefs,    and   a  manifeft   Violation  of  the  Seventh 

*  Command  ;  if  not  naked,  then  they  chiefly  baptize  only 

*  the  Clothes,  and  do  no  more  than  foak  the  Body.' 
Anf.   I  appeal  to  any  modf-ft  impartial  Perfon,  whether 

Mr.  F.  hath  not  given  more  juft  Occaiion  to  defile  Peo- 
ple's Minds,  by  this  vain  and  impertinent  Way  of  Talk- 
ing, than  ever  we  have  given  by  adminiftring  Baptifm  by 
Immerfion  ?  But  fays  he,  if  we  baptize  People  in  their 
Clothes,  we  chiefly  baptize  only  the  Clothes,  and  do  no 
more  than  foak  the  Body.  A  mighty  Inconveniency  fure  I 
Juft  as  if  baptizing  a  clothed  Body  in  Water,  was  not  bap- 
tizing the  Body  !  As  if  a  Body  could  not  be  faid  to  be  bu- 
ried in  the  Earth,  unlefs  it  was  buried  naked  !  Rare 
Difcoveries  !  Whatever  he  may  imagine  to  gain  by  fuch 
Kind  of  Reafoning,  we  can  affure  him,  we  don't  yet 
feel  the  Force  of  his  fuppofed  Inconveniency,  or  Ab- 
furdity,  pinching  us. 

'  Either  the  Minifter  himfelf  dips  the  whole  Body,  or 

*  only  apart  of  it.'— All  that  Mr,  F.  adv^ceth  on  this 

Head, 


r  156  ; 

Head,  is  foon  refuted,  by  the  Inftance  of  the  Eunuch's 
Baptifm  ;  who  was  not  carried,  but  vent  himfelf  into 
the  Water ;  yet  his  going  into  tVe  Water  was  no  Part  of 
his  Baptifm,  for  he  was  wiiolly  dipt  bv  Philip. 

Hence  the  Strengch  of  this  Dilemma  or  horned  Argu- 
ment, is  not  like  to  turn  us  back  from  following  the 
Scriptural  Mode  of  Baptizing  ;  for  wc  find  the  Horns 
are  not  made  of  Iron  as  Zedekiah\  %  were,  but  of  hu- 
man., feeble  Dtvkes^  which  will  not  ftand  a  Touch  in 
Battle,  againft  the  invincible  Word  of  God,  Pro.  xxi. 
30.  Ifa.  viii.  9,  10.  If  Mr.  F.  would  be  found  to  aft 
agreeable  with  the  Practice  in  Apoftolical  Times,  he 
ihould  go  with  the  Party  to  be  bap'ized,  or  dipt,  into 
the  Water  too  ;  and  nc;t  call  for  a  Beaton  of  Water  to  be 
brought  into  a  Mceting-h.^ule,  oreifewhere,  in  order  to 
fprinkle  a  few  Drops  on  the  Perfuis  Face  ;  which  Prac- 
tice hath  no  Peccknt  i.i  the  Word  of  God. 

*  Either  they   b?.pt)z,e   Perfons  whenever  they    make 

•  a  credible  and  faci^fadtory  Profeffion  of  their  Faith,  and 

*  earneftly  dcfire  Baptifm,  or  they  do  not.'  Jnf.  Our 
Antagonift  would  fain  find  fomcrhing  here,  that  he  may- 
infer  Baptizing  or  Dipping  to  be  a  Breach  of  the  Sixth 
Command  ;  and  accordingly  conjeftures  and  fuppofes  di- 
vers Things  whicli  may  fall  out,  as  that  a  Per/on  may  be 
converted  in  the  Depth  ofJVinter.  Well  if  lie  is,  and  de- 
fires  Baptifm,  he  may  be  baptized,  as  many  others  have 
been  heretofore  in  cold  Weather,  without  any  Hurt  or 
Injury  to  the  Baptizer  or  Baptized.  This  is  not  all,  one 
thay  be  taken  fick  with  a  dangerous  Difeafe.,  the  Pleurifjy 
Flux.,  Small -I  ex.  Sic.  and  is  then  brought  to  believe  in 
Chnji.,  and  convinced  he  ought  to  be  baptized  :  Well,  what 
of  that  ?  fVhy  if  Baptifm  is  denyd,  God  is  difobey  d  ; 
If  he  be  plung'd.  he  will  be  kilN.  I  doubt  not  but  fuch 
kind  oi  ReaK-nings,  are  mafteriv  Strokes  in  our  Author's 
Account;  but  before  they  will  be  of  much  Service  to 
him.  Mr.  F  fhould  fpeak  out.  That  Baptifm  is  ahfoiutely 
necfffary  to  Salvation  ;  or  iftheftck  Perfon  fhould  die  un^ 
bapt'-vced^  he  would  be  certainly  damn'd  ;  and  not  mmce 
the  Matter  j  for  then  we  fhould  know  more  certainly, 
whether  we  muft  anfwer  him  as  a  PrQtejianty  or  a  Papijh 

u 

"l  I  Kuigi  xxiu  i^« 


(    157    ) 

If  he  fays  *tis  not  abfolutely  necefTar^,  then,  in  fucH 
Circumftances,  it  can  be  neither  Difjbedience  to  Godj 
nor  injurious  to  the  fick  Perfon,  to  defer  his  Baptifm  (rf 
he  recovers)  till  fuch  Time  as  he  is  capable  to  give  Obe^ 
dience  to  God  therein.  Let  Mr.  F.  try  how  his  A;gu- 
menr  here,  will  fuit  with  his  own  Practice  ;  fuppofe  a 
gracious  Perfon  to  be  hck  of  fuch  Difeafes,  and  one  who 
not  at  allj  or  for  fome  great  while  paft,  has  not  received 
the  Sacrament  of  the  Supper  ;  but  in  his  Sicknefs  earncft- 
ly  defires  to  partake  of  it  (for  fuch  a  Thing  hath  been 
to  my  certain  Knowledge^  would  he  adminifter  the  Sup- 
per to  that  fjck  Perfon,  or  is  it  cuilomary  for  him  to  do 
fo  ?  I  believe  not.  Why  then  fhould  it  be  charg'd  as  aa 
Inconvcniency  or  Abfurdity  on  us,  for  not  adminiftring 
Baptifm  on  iuch  an  Occafion  ?  Why  is  the  one  Sacrament 
more  neceflary  to  fick  Perfns  than  rhe  other  ?  Or  if  one 
may  be  deferred  till  convenient  Time,  why  not  the 
ether  ?  Let  him  give  us  fomething  like  a  folid  and  fub- 
fiantial  Reafon  of  the  Difference  in  (he  Cafe,  why  Bap- 
tifm mufl  be  adminiftred  to  a  fick  Perfon  who  defires  it, 
but  the  Lord's  Supper  mufl  not,  tho'  he  defires  it  ever  fo 
much  ?  And  when  we  have  his  Anfwer  to  thic  Queftion, 
we  may,  if  need  be,  fpeak  more  to  the  Point  :  In  the 
mean  Time,  the  Heap  of  Abfurdities  this  Gentleman 
would  willingly  throw  upon  the  Truth  we  profefs,  do 
Aide  clean  off ;  for  in  Protejiant  Language  we'll  venture 
to  fay,  X  «  The  want  of  the  Sacraments  doth  not  hurt, 
when    with    Conveniengy    a    Man   cannot  enjoy 

*  them,  but  the  Contempt  or  Negle£l  of  them  when  they 

*  may  conveniently  be  come  unto.' 

Says  our  Author^  *  Seeing  the  Scriptures  afFord  neither 

*  Precept,    nor  fo  much  as   one  undoubted  Example   of 
'  Baptizing  by  Plunging,    can  it  be  thought  lefs  than  an 

*  Abfurdity  to  make  that  Mode  of  Adminiflration  effen- 

*  tial  to  the  Ordinance,  fo  as  nothing  elfe  can   be  Bap- 
tifm.    The  Reader  may  fee  how  little  they  are  favour- 

*  ed  by  the  Etimology  of  the  Word  Baptizo,  by  Scripture 

*  Examples,  or  by  Scripture  Allufions  ;  and  fo  may  judge 
'  how  Eflential  to  Baptifm,  Dipping  is.'     Jnf.  There  is 
no  Reader  who  ads  hkeaMan,  will  judge  any  Gafe,  be- 
fore 

J  Areh-bp.  VOtuU  Boij  of  Diy,  p.  404, 


(     158     ) 

fore  he  has  heard  and  weighed  both  Sides  :    And  here  he 
will  find  that  the  Learner'  conOantly  afflrm  that  Baptizo 
nativt'ly  and  properly   (igv.'.fics  t' dip  or  p/unge.      Let   him 
aHoobferve,  that  Mr.  F.  has  not  given  him  one  Inftance, 
where  the  Word  is  render'd,  or  fignifirs  topour  or  fprinkle. 
The  judicious  Reader  is   further  dcfired  ta  obferve,   that 
we  have  the  Commiflion  of  our  Lord  to  baptize  (i.  e.  to 
dip)  Believers  ;   hut  there  is  no  Commiflion  lo  fpr Inkle  lit' 
fonts.      Tliat  John  baptized  Perfons  in  the  River  Jordan^ 
'and  in   Mnon  \    that   Philip  and    the  Eunuch  went   both 
down  ifito  the  Water  to   celebrate  this  holy  Ordinance  : 
But  not  one  fingle  Inftance  of  any  one  Perfon  fprinkled  in 
an  Houfe  ;     nor  any  neceflary  Coiifeqnence  to  conclude 
that  any  were  :     That  the  Apo^le  Paul  fpeaks  of  whole 
Churches  being  buried  by,  or  in  Baptifm,  which   cannot 
be    true  but  by  dipping  Purfons  in  Water,   when  the  Or- 
dinance is  adminiftred.      Upon  the  whole,   let  the  Reader 
judge  which  is  the  ^W  old  Way  of  Baptizing  marked  out 
in  Scripture,  and  follow  it  accordingly. 

'  Lartly,  it  fcems  to  me  nofmall  Abfurdity  to  exclude 

*  and  unchriftian  all  the  other  Proteftant  Churches  on  the 

*  Account  of  this  Mode.'     Jfnf.  What  an  odd  Way  has 
Mr.  F.  got  of  reprefenting  Things  !    When    did  he  ever 
hear  any  of  us  fay  that  there  were  no  Chriftians  in  other 
Denominations  ?  Or  how  is  it  poflible  wc  fliould  unchri- 
ftian them,  when  according  to  our  Principles,   we  do  not 
adminifter   Baptifm  to  anv      but   to  thofe,  who  in   the 
Judgment  of  Charity,  are  look'd  upon  to  be  Chriftians  ? 
Does  he  think  Infant- Bv^i'm  to  be  Kflential  to  Chrifti- 
anity,  when  he  talks  at  this  Rate  }    1  hat  if  we  deny  the 
one,  we  exclude  the  ©ther.     Does  a  hociety  unchriftian 
all  others  with  whom  it  cannot  or  doth  not  hold  Commu- 
nity ?    If  To,  the  Prefbyterian  Society  unchriftians  all  other 
Communities   with    v/hom    it  cannot,  or  does  not  hold 
Communion,     'Tis  then  high  Time  for  Mr.  F.  to  look 
about  him,  and  anfwer  for  himfelf.     I   wilh  our  Oppo- 
nents would  ftick  to  one  Thing,  and  not  flv  backwards 
and  forwards  :    One  while  they  reckon  Baptifm  among 
the  Ciycumjiantiah  of  Religion  ;    at  another  Time  they 
give  out,   that  by  our  pleading  for,  and  uling  this  Mode 
cf  Immerfion,    wc  uxichrijiun  all  th»  othir  Pretejiant 


r  159  ) 

Churches.  Juft  as  if  the  Eflentials  of  Religion  could  not 
/«'y?//,  v/hcre  People  are  corrupt  or  defeaive  in  the  Cir- 
cuinftantiah  ;  or  as  if  the  Eflentials  were  overthrown,  by 
fpeaking  or  writing  againft  intolerable  Corruptions  in  tb« 
Circumftantials.  But  any  Thing,  tho'  ever  fo  incon- 
fiftent  or  Tenfelefs,  to  carton  Oi/ium  upon  us  ! 

»  To  impofe  any  Thing  as  a  Term  of  Communion, 

*  which  Chrift  has  not  made  fj  j  and   to  unchriflian  and 

*  exclude  from  Communion,  ferious  ChrMftians,  upon 
'  Account  of  fuch  impofed  Circumflances,    is  fchifma- 

*  tical,  uncharitable,  and  downright  Bigotry.'  What 
is  all  this,  but  an  empty  Noife,  and  groundlefs  Exclama- 
tion, raifed  againrt  us  ?  Granting,  that  v/e  admit  non« 
to  our  Communion,  but  thofe  who  are  regularly  bapti- 
zed, according  to  the  Order  of  the  Gofpel ;  which  is  not 
making  new  Terms  of  Communion  ;  When  did  we 
ever  attempt  to  impofe  this  upon  any  Chriftians  whatfo- 
ever,  or  in  the  leaft  infringe  on  the  Liberties  of  others  ? 
Have  wc  attempted  any  Thing  in  any  Way,  but  what 
the  Scripture  dire£ts,  and  allows,  viz,  to  convince  them 
that  differ  from  us  by  Scriptural  Arguments?  How  can 
Mr.  F.  fay,  that  vje  unchrijlian  and  exclude  from  Csmmu- 
n'lon  ferious  ChriJIiqns  ;  do  we  hinder  theni  from  Com- 
munion in  their  refpedive  Societies  .?  And  is  it  not  tho 
undoubted  Privilege  of  all  Chnftian  Societies  to  judge  for 
themfelves,  who  fhall  be  admitted  into  their  Communion  ? 
Have  we  exceeded  thofc  Bounds,  or  what  is  pradicai  in 
other  Communities  ?  Let  Mr.  F.  make.outthat  we  have, 
or  eife  ceafe  to  raife  falfe  and  empty  Outcries  againft  us. 

Butitmuftbeobferv'd,  that  Mr. /iV/A-j  is  a  very  unfit 
Perfon  to  charge  us  with  .Sr-^z/w:  For  is  it  not  undeniably 
notorious,  that  he  is  deeply  guilty  of /V  himfelf,  with  others 
of  his  AfTociates,  from  whofe  ^larter  this  Piece  before  mc 
came  .?  Do  they  call  themfelves  Pre/by teriam^  and  f  pro- 
fefs  to  hold  the  same  Confejfion  oi Faith,  Catechifms,  and 
Direaory,  as  the  Synod  does,  and  yet  keep  and  maiiitain  fe- 
parate  Communion  from  their  Brethren  of  the  fame  Faith 
and  Praaice  \     What  is  that  but  Sc H  ism  ? 

Again,  What  are  the  new  Ereaiom  of  Meeting  Houfes 
hard  by  Meeting  Houfes,  and  Tents  by  Tents  through  the 

Country, 
t  Vid.  Mr.  Blair's  AnJnudrerfioni  on  Mr.  Craighsad'i  Receding,  &c.  p.  i  j. 


(    i6o    ) 

Coiirttry,  by  the  fame  Denomination^  but  vifible^xAJiafid' 
ing  Signs  of  Schism  ? 

Does  Mr.  F.  think  that  he  and  his  Brethren  have  fuffi- 
cient  Grounds  to  juftify  themfelves  in  their  prefent  Situa- 
tion i  and  will  he  not  allow  us  the  Liberty  to  ftand  for  what 
we  believe  to  be  the  CW^rand  Appointment  of  Chrift,  and 
maintain  our  Communion  feparate,  while  others  can't  fee 
as  we  do,  or  we  as  they,  without  his  charging  our  Praaice 
to  be  fchifmatical,  uncharitable^,  and  downright  Bigotry  ? 
Strange   Partiality  ! 

We  might  have  had  the  leafb  Reafon  to  exped  the  heavy 
Charge  otSchi/m,  Uncharitablenefs,  and  Bigotry  from  that 
Q-iarier  above  any.- --And  if  Mr.  F.  experts  to  do  any 
Thinii  to  Purpofe  in  this  Debate,  he  muft  ufe  fome  Me- 
thod befules  this,  to  convince  us  of  wh.it  be  fuppofes  to  be 
our  Miftake.  Hut  it  is  not  Bigotry  to  hold  and  maintain 
Immerf.on  to  be  the  proper  and /:r/>/«rtf /Mode  of  Baptizing, 
anv  (.cnerwife  than  holding  the  Truth  is  fo. 

Finally  :  Seemg  Sprinkling  d'-es  no  V/ay  accord  with 
the  Mean  ng  of  the  Word  Baptizo,  nor  with  the  Exam- 
ples of  Bapcifm  in  Scripture,  nor  hath  any  Inflances  in 
Holy  Writ  toconfim  it  }  neither  does  it  anfwer  the  great 
Ends  of  Bap  fm,  it  evidently  appears  to  be  not  the  Mode 
appoiDtsd  oi  God,  .but  a  mere  human  Invention  :  And 
the  coiurar) ,  viz.  hnmerjion,  to  be  the  Only  proper  fcrip- 
tuial  Mode  ol  iUpt'ifm,  fo  fufHcier  tly  confirmed  by  divine 
Authority,  and  worthily  recommended  to  us,  bv  the 
Doarine  and  Example  of  Chrift  himlelf.  and  his  blefled 
Apoftles,  for  our  conftant  Imitation  and  Praaicc. 


FINIS. 


A      N 


APPENDIX 

To  the  Foregoing .  W  O  R  K  5 


BEING 


REMARKS 

On fome Particulars ina late  PAMPHLETj 


Entituled-, 


Divine  Right  0/ INFANT-BAPTISM,  ^a 


Written  by  another  HAND, 


PHILADELPHIA^: 

Printed   by     B.     FRAN  K  JL,  I  N; 
T  ^M,DCC,XL?Iir 


(    i63    ) 

A    N 

APPENDIX 

To  the  Foregoing  W  O  R  K  ^ 
BEING 

R  E  M  A  R  K  S 

OnfomePARTicuLARsinalatePAMPHLETj 
Entituled, 

Divine  Right  ^/INFANT-BAPTISM,  ^cj 


A  V  I  N  G  feen  and  read  the  afore-mention- 
ed Pamphlet  written  by  ananonymous  Author, 
under  the  feigned  Pretence  (as  I  fuppofe)  of 

Difcourfe  between   a   Minifter  and  one  of  his 

Parifhioners  ;  tho'  I  can  fee  nothing  in  the  faid  Pamphlet 
contained  againft  us  who  pradtife  Adult-baptifm,  and 
queftion  the  Validity  of  Intant-baptifm,  both  as  to  the 
Mode  and  Subjeds  of  it,  but  what  hath  been  confuted 
over  and  over,  by  learned  Men  of  our  Perfuafion,  as  Dr. 
Gale,  Mr.  Keach,  Mr.  Stennet,  and  many  others  ;  io 
that  there  would  be  no  Need  of  fpending  Time  and  Pains 
jn  this  AfFaifj  were  it  not  that  the  Advocates  for  the  A- 
bufe  of  the  facred  Ordinance  of  Baptifm,  do  ftill  fhruft 
their  ReccSia  Crambe,  or  Cawl  Aildwym^  upon  us,  T  ime 
after  Time  ;  which  hath  occafioned  the  foregoing  Sheets 
«n  that  Subjea,   in  Anfwer  to  Mr.  F,   wherein  fome 

L  2  Notice 


(    M    ( 

Notice  is  alfo  taken  of  the  faid  namelefs  Author,  yet  I 
think  it  is  not  out  of  the  Way  to  fay  fomerhing  further 
to  the  faid  anonymous  Pamphleteer. 

Bv  the  Way,  why  is  it  left  in  the  Dark,  and  not 
made  known  to  what  Denomination  of  ['nedo-bapciils 
that  Author  belongs,  as  there  are  four  Denoniinarions 
that  p:a£{ife  SDrinklinQ:  of  Infants,  viz.  Church  of /,"«- 
gland  iVlcn,  Independants.  Prefb-terians,  and  Papifts  i 
and  'tis  A  Wonder  it  this  Gentleman  doth  n(U  belong  to 
one  of  the  Four  ;  I  C('iij<;cluje  however,  that  lie  is  either 
a  Prefbyterian  or  a  Fapill;  ;  if  I  knev/  where  to  fix  him, 
I  fliould  know  better  how  to  meet  l)im  onhiso(vn  Prin- 
ciples ;  but  now  I  mud  treat  him  in  Ambiguo  :  And  as 
feme  of  his  Clamours  againll  us  who  piadtite  Adult-bap- 
tifm,  are  only  fiich  as  were  at  the  Reformation  objected  by 
the  Papifti  againli  the  Reformers  in  general,  and  which 
tl  ey  do  to  tliis  Da\  ;  therefore  I  cannot  be  much  blamed, 
if  by  Timeofhis  Reafonings  I  ftiould  think  him  a  Papift  } 
or  Lit  leail,  one  that  bears  fimc  Veneration  for  the  Triple 
Crown.  — Concerning  the  Mode  and  Subjedsof  B^ptifra, 
fufficient  hath  been  faid  in  the  foregoing  Work,  that  I 
v/ill  not  at  P.efent  take  it  into  Confideration,  as  to  dwell 
upon  it. 

In  the  eighth  Page  the  Author  afkelh  his  Neighbour  a 
Queftion,  vit^.  At  ivhat  Time  do  you  fiifpofe  Infant- baptifm 
did  fir/}  univerfally  obtain  in  the  Church  F  and  then  brings 
in  his  Neighbour  (as  uniead  in  Church-hi(^ory)  to  fay, 
That  the  Authors  he  had  read  on  that  SubJeJf,  did  not  fup- 
pcfc  this  to  have  happen' d  earlier  than  between  three  and  four 
Hundred  Tears  after  Chri/fs  Nativity—  To  which  he  rc- 
p  es,  and  fays.  If  you  had  read  the  ^Authors  on  the  other 
Side  of  the  ^uejiiony'  you  would  have  found  undoubted  Evi- 
dence f  om  the  ancient  Fathers^  that  In'nnt  bapiifm  ccn- 
Jiuntlj  '.btained  in  the  truly  primitive  Churchy  ^c.  By 
/tuthors  on  the  other  Side  of  the  Q;_ieltioii,  doubtlcfs  he 
means  rasdo-bapcifts  ;  and  it  muft  oe  contefTed,  tlat  fe- 
deral o{  them  (hke  himielf)  have  been  mote  bold  and 
dogniatick  ina/Ferting,  than  fuccefsful  in  producing  fuch 
Evidci.re  :  That  it  hsfth  b^en  alv.avs  Aot  only  doubted, 
but  coiiiutcd,  both  tiom  the  Scripture,  and  the  Fathers  ; 

yet 


(.  i65  ) 
vet  if  this  Author  was  ingenuous,  he  muft  own  (unlefs 
he  is  ill- read  indeed)  that  a  ^reat  n.any  of  thofe  learned 
Authors  who  praaife  Infant  baptifm  themfelves,  have 
frankly^  owned  the  quite  contrary  ;  as  the  Reader  may 
U.  in  the  foreaoin?  She.is  ;  fee  alfo  Mr.  Swmet  aganjft 
7^,/r>,,  from>a^e  146  to  189;  and  them  too  of  the 
fi.lt  Rank  for  Learning  and  Searching,  and  had  better 
Advantages  to  make  \L.-qr\ry  than  our  Au'hor,  living  la 
Jmerica^ could  have.  I  iLall  have  Occafion  to  mention 
fom.th.ng  in  this,  and  the  next  Page  afterwards,  there- 
fore   1   proceed  to   confiJer  ibc  tenth  i'age  of  U"s  Pam- 

^\n'Pa<re  the  lo^h,  this  Auth-r  puts  the  Qiieftion  to  his 
Ne-"-hbMir  thus  ;     fLw  came  the  Mnd  men  of  Munjler  ? 
How  came  thrfir/i  Anil  fc.do  huf'ifls  m  England  by  ihetr 
BoMi'm  ?  ^('d  thefe  any  other  Baptifm  than  what  they  re- 
ceive In  Infancy  ?   If  not     (nsUUc,rialnth.-yhidnot)     it 
wufi  follow,     that  either  I^fnU  haptljm  n  the  Ordinance  of 
Chrljh   or  they  could  not  havf  a  Right  to  aamtoijier   that 
Ordinance   to  others,     which  ihey   had  not   received  them- 
felvcs  ;   the  Mnlnlfiratl'm  therefore  (according  to  yvir  own 
Principled)  muji  he  a  Nullhy  'In  the  Begint.v.gandcoife- 
quently  mufi  continue   a  Nullity  ever  fine e       Th  Bapujm 
you  pretend  to^  was  (upon  theje  Principles)  firf.  a'^mimji'ed 
in  En^^land  by  unhapilzed  Perjons,     by  fuch  .as  wene  not  Jo 
much  Is  vlflhie   Chrljllans   themfhes,     by  fuch  who   could 
therefore  have  no  Claim  to    the  Gofpel  Mtntfiry,     nor  any 
Rhht  to  adminijfer  facrcd  Ordinances  ;    and  copf  pientl)'^ 
tht  whole  Succejfton  of  your  Allmf try  from  that  rvne,  mufi 
remain   unhaptized  Ferj'ons  ;  and  there  can  therefore  be  no 
Baptifm  amop.v you,    any  more  than  among  us,     until  there  be 
a  new  Commljfton  from  Heaven   to  renew  and  reft  ore  this 
Ordinance,  which  Is  at  prefent  lofi  out  of  the  World. 

As  to  the  fint  Part  of  this  Queflion,  vtz.  How  the 
lAad  men  o/Munfter  came  by  their  Baptifm  ;  1  think  it  is 
not  the  Bufinefs  of  anv  iVian  in  the  Brltlfh  Dominions, 
to  give  an  Account  ofVuch  foreign  Tranladions,  upon 
whi'ch  we  build  none  of  our  Praftice  j  but  1  fuppofe  this 
is  mentioned  here,  and  in  the  foregoing  Pige,  ""/"'- 
pofe  to  caft  an  Odium  (ifpoffible)  on  oar  Praaice  of 
^  j_,  J  Adult- 


(    i66    ) 

Adiilt-baptifm  :  Now  fuppofing  this  Author  to  be  a 
Prefbyterian,  as  perhaps  he  is,  and  therefore  adhering  to 
the  Model  ofD  .6trine  and  Difcipline  fet  up  zxGeneval  by 
that  famous  Reformer  Mr.  Calvin  and  his  Coliegues,  if 
this  Gentleman  will  forfake  every  1  hm"^  that  had  an  o- 
chous  Name  beftowed  on  it,  or  that  was  maintained  by 
/bme  infamous  Perfons,  he  mult  of  Courfe  renounce  the 
mod,  if  not  all  the  fundamental  Truths  he  holds,  on  the 
Account  of  infamous  Names  or  fcandalous  Perfons  that 
held  the  fame  ;  yea,  he  muft  renounce  the  Genevian 
Difcipline  too,  for  Dr.  Heyl'in  faith,  that  the  Genevian 
Dijctpline,  wns  begotten  in  Rebellion^  horn  in  Sedition,  and 
fiurfed  up  by  Fuclion  ;  fee  Heylin's  Cofmography,  Piige 
l6o,  Edit.  6.  but  as  to  the  Anti-P«do  baptifts  in  E?ig. 
land^  it  is  fufEcient  in  this  Place  to  fay,  they  had  not  their 
Baptifm  from  ihe  Church  of  Rome,  or  any  of  her  Pre- 
]ates  ;  and  I  fhall  (fuppofing  this  Gentleman  a  Prefby- 
terianj  retort  the  Q^ieftion,  and  make  bold  to  afk  him. 
How  the  Kirk  of  Scotland  came  by  her  Scripturelefs  In- 
fant Sprinkl.ng  at  firft  ?  I  prefume  it  is  not  long  fince 
England  zt\6  Scotland  too,  did  wonder  after  the  Beaft  of 
Rome,  and  had  nothing  in  general  but  Idolatrous  and  An- 
tichriftian  Admlniltiarions  :  At  the  Reformation  then. 
How  came  the  firft  .Prefbvterians  by  their  pretended 
Baptifm  r  If  they  fay  they  had  it  from  Rome,  as  it  is  very 
like  they  will,  then  I  infer,  that  the  Kirk  ohcotland 
muft  own,  that  Antichrift  hath  been  et-trufted  bv  Chrift 
to  adminifter  the  Ordinances  of  his  Gofpel,  which  is  to 
adoi  n  the  Pope's  Crown  with  a  Feather,  that  Chrift  ne- 
ver intended  the  Son  of  Perdition  to  wear  :  His  own  Ar- 
guments muft  fuiely  bear  hard  on  this  Author  ;  had  we 
our  true  Baptifm  from  fuch  as  were  not  vifible  Chriftians 
in  his  Account,  he  had  a  Scripturelefs  Baptifm  from  vifi- 
ble Antichriftians  in  nisown  Account,  unlefs  our  Author 
is  a  Fapift  ;  were  our  fiift  Adminiftrators  unbaptized  in 
his  Account,  fo  were  the  firft  Prefljyterians  j  unlefs  our 
Author  can  prove,  that  Chrift  did  give  a  Commi/Tion  to 
Antichrift  to  alter  the  Odjnance  if  Baptifm,  both  as  to 
the  Mode  and  Subject  of  it. 

Our  Aujijor  fcems  to  argue,  as  if  no  Man  may  admi- 

niflet; 


f    i67    ) 
«;fter  otherwlfe  than  he    received    hlmfelf  ;  Why  then 
dotrno    theKi,kof5c.^W 

fhe  Pap  ft '^o  ?    How  came  the  firft  Prefbyter.ans  to  alter 
XI  vfrnner  in  which  thev  received   it  m  their  Infancy  ? 
May  notThe  Church  of  Rome  caft  the  fame  Refled-ons  as 
SonourAuihor  (if  he  be  a  Proteftant)  -  he  doth  on 
others  ".  But  why  may  not  a  Communuy  of  Chrift.aa 
People'  by  mutual  Gonfent,    an  !  jomed  together  m  Co- 
vcnant    warrantably  reform  their  own  Pradice,  as  well 
Is  Pr^cipTs,  by  the^Vord  of  God  ;  and  rcftore  the  pn- 
n^itive^u'fe  o'fjofpel  Ordinances    -cordmg  to  the  Inft. 
tntion  of  Ghrift  in  the  New-7  eftament  :  it  this  be  deni 
ed     ^n  the  Kuk  of  ScoU.nd  is  highly  faulty  m  wuh- 
dr  wng  from    the   Rcrni^  ;    and  this  would   Raze  the 
Foundation  of  all    the  Reformation,  to  all  Intents  and 
Purpores  •     If  it  be  granted  that  Chrift-an  Communities, 
rsTread,    may  reform,  then  I  fay,  that  our  Ch.irches 
a  e  upon  a  Level  with  other  Proteftants     and  have  Wa  - 

rant  'fuffic.ent  to  reform  our  own  ^^--}ZVthcM{^ 
nance  of  Baptifm,  or  any  other,  according  to  the  Initi- 
"ut^on  of  Chrift,  and  the  primitive  Patterns  found  m  the 

New-Teftament. And  further,    if  (accordmg  to  our 

Author's  Way  of  Reafoning)  noManmayadm.nifterotner 
w  (i  thanhe  receive^  himfelf(tho'  wefeethe  Kirk  of  5../- 
7aTd  did  not  obferve  this  at  the  Reformation)    How  came 
it  to  oafs    that  feme  Prefby  terians  have  made  bold  to  bap- 
tfea^du     Perfonsby  Dipping,    which  was  other  wife  than 
they  re     ived  themfelves'?   This  is  fad  ;    for  Mr.  Benja- 
J  Button  was  baptized  by  Dipping  by  o^e  that  jvas  a 
Prefbvterian  Minifter    (and  if  he  had  been  dipped  b     Mt. 
Dutton  again,   where  would  the  Inconveniency  be  ?;  be- 
fides  other  of  hke  Inftances,    we  could  produce      Again, 
This  Gentleman  will  find  it  difficult  to  reconcile  h.sRea- 
fnninos    aad  the  Prefbyterian  Pradice  together  i     for  if 
our  Admmiftrat.ons  we^re    (as  he  faith)    a  Nullity  in  t1.e 
Becrinnina,  and  mOa  continue  a  Nulhty  ever  fince     How 
do'^the  pTefby terians  receive  fome  that  come  over  from  us 
to  them,  without  giving  them  a  valid  B-Pt'J'"' ^^ f  y  ^^^^^ 
it   but  in  Faa,  they  receive  fuch;  and  I  make  no  doubt  but 
our  Author  hlmfelf  would  do  it,if.he  had  Opportunity,  al- 

L  4  " 


(    168    ) 
tho'  they  had  but  a  Nullity  adminiflred    by  fuch  as  had 
no  R.ght  to  adm.n.fter  facred  Ordinances  (if  this  Gentle- 
man m^y  be  behevedj     Let  him  extricate  himfelf  and 
others  from  Inconfiftency  in  this  AfFair  if  he  can  ? 

In  this  laft  cited  Paragraph,  there  is  fomething'infinu- 
ated  which  is  it  feems)  chiefly  defigned  by  our  Anthor 
aga.nft  our  M.n.fters,  as  if  they  had  n^o  Right  to  adminif! 

I7n'r  1^  T""'']-  "^^  ^">'  ^^^'"^  '^  ^he  Gofpel  Mi- 
niftry  Now,  fuppo  ing  this  namelefs  Author  to  be  a 
Prefbytenan,    I  fhall  prefume  to  a^'  him  a  Q-.eftion, 

How  came  the  firft  Prefbyterians  by  their  Right  to  ad- 
M  nift''  ?""7    Ordinances,    and  a  Claim  to  the  Ck^fpel 
Mm.ftry        ^not  that  I  d.fpute  whether  they  have  fuch  a 
K.ghtandClaimorno,   that  is  not  my  Bufinefs)  But  how 
came  they  by  the  Right  and  Claim  they  pofTefs  ?    If  he 
Will  fay    (as  fome  others  have  faid)    that  they  have  it  bv 
an   uninterrupted  SuccefTion  of  Men  ordain'd  from  the 
Apoft^s,    then  I  demand  the  authentic  Record  of  that 
Succeffion  till  the  Reformation  at  leaft,  and  who  were  the 
Perfons  in  whom  it  was  vefted  at  the  Reformation,    and 
how  It  was  conferred  on  the  Prefbyterians  ;  if  that  Gen- 
tieman,    or  fomebody  for  him,    caniiot  anfwer  my  De- 
mand,   I  ftall  conclude  thattheBaptiftMiniflers  (being- 
endowed  With  G.Us  by  God,  and  called  regula.ly  by  ou? 
Churches)  have  a  Right  toadminifler  facred  Ordinances, 
and  as  good  a  Claim  to  the  Gofpel  Miniilry  as  any  other 
(our  Author  not  accepted)  But  perhaps  he  will  derive  his 
Kight  and  Claim  from  R.me  (as  I  am  informed  the  Pref- 
bytenans  have  of  late)    then  I  defire  our  Author  may  be 
pleafedto  inform  us,  whether   the  Kirk  of  Ro;^e   was  a 
Chrifttian  or  Ant.chriftian  Church,  at  the  Time  when  the 
ivirk  ot  bcoi/an^  did   withdraw  from  her  ?    Now  if  the 
Church   of  Rome  was   a    regular  Chriftian    Church   at 
iV  ^7^'/"^  ^^^  ^2^id  Baptifm,  Ordination,  and  other 
J-flentials  of  a  regular  Chriftian  Church  ;  then  the  Church 
of  6../W  was  a  Schifmatical  Church  at  the  Beginning, 
and  muft  continue  fo  ever  fince  J    and   confequemlv  her 
Mimfters  have  but  a  Schifmatical  Right   to  !he   Gofpel 
MaM{\ry,    and  the  Adminiftration  of  facred  Ordinances. 

Oa 


r  i69  ) 

On  the  other  Side,  if  the  Church  oi Rome^  at  and  before 
the  Reformation,  was  become  Antichriftian,   the  Ivlylls- 
ry  of  Babylon^  the  Mother  of  Harlots,  and  the  Pope  An- 
tichritt,  the  Beaft,  and  the  Son  of  Perdition    (as  I  think 
it  is  not  to  be  doubted  of  by  any  Proteftant)    as  Mr.  Ru- 
therford,  Mr.  Durbaniy  and  others,  both  Foreign  and  Do- 
meltick,    have  made  to  appear  j  then  fuch  as  derive  their 
Right  and  Claim  to  the  Gofpel  Miniftry  from  Rome  Pa- 
pal,   muft  have  but  a  very  defedtive  Original  ;    and  I 
think    that  if  the  Baptifts  did  derive  from  the  Mad- men 
of    Munjler^    it   would    not   be   a  greater  Ignominy,   as 
fcandalous  as   they  are  deemed  to  be.     But  fuch  Prote- 
ftants  as  would  go  to  Rome  for  their  firft  Right  to  admi- 
nifter  Gofpel  Ordinances,    and  a  Claim  to  the  Miniflry, 
ought    to    make  out   thefe   two  Things  very  clear,  w'z. 
Firji^    That  Antichrift  hath  been  entrufted  and  authori- 
zed by  Chi  ift,    to  convey  valid  Ordination  to  the  Minif- 
ters  of  his  Gofpel  :     Secondly,    That    Gofpel  Ordinances 
were  not  ?>bufed  and  bafely  ar'ukeraied  by  that  Mother  of 
Harlots,  the  Church  of  7?57«?.      AstotheFirft,  wehavethe 
firft  Reformers  of  the  Church  of  Er:g land,     difclaiming 
any  Orders  from  Rorne,     and  faying,     VVe  defy,     deteft, 
and  abhor  their  Stinking,   Greafy,   Antichriftian  Ordf^s. 
The    famous   Whitaker  fays,    /  would  not  have  you  thhk 
that  we  make  fuch  Reckoning  of  pur  Orders^     as  to  hold  our 
ovm  Vocation  unlaw fjil -without  them  :    Whit. Jeer    Contra 
Dur/sum.     Dr.  Fulk  alfo  faith,   Tou  are  much  deceived.,  if 
you  think  we  efteem  your  Offices  of  Bifjops,  Priejls,  and  Dea- 
cons,  any  better  than  Lay tnen  ;  and  you  prcfufne  too  much ^  to 
think  that  we  receive  your  Orderings  to  be  lawful  ;     Fulk's 
Jnfwer  to  the  Connterfit  Catholick  ;    both   cited  by   Mr. 
Davifon    in  his  Vindication  of  the  Proteftant  Minifter's 
Mifiicn,    p.  53,  54.     and   the   faid  Davifon  in  the  fame 
54th  Page,  cites  Bifhop  Burnet's   Expofition  on   the    39 
Articles    of  the  Church  oi  England,  p.  257.   where  are 
thefe  Words  on  the  23d  Article,    which  relates  to  Ordi- 
nation, This  Article  doth  not  re/olve  this  hftto  any  particular 
Conjiitution^    hut  leaves  that  Matter  open  and  at  large,  for 
fuch  Accidents  as  had  happened,  and  fuch  as  might  Jlill  hap- 
pen ■ :    They  xvho  drew  it,    had  the  State  of  the  fevcral 

Churches 


(    >7o    ) 

Churches  before  their  Eyes^  that  had  been  differently  reform' 
ed  ;  and  tho*  their  own  had  been  Iffs  forced  to  go  out  of  the 
beaten  Path  than  others^  yel  they  knew  that  all  Things  a- 
mong  themfelves^  had  not  gone  according  to  thofe  Rules 
which  ought  to  be  facred  in  regular  Times  j  hut  Necrjfity  has 
no  Law,  anj^  is  a  Law  to  it] elf. 

We  fee  the  Relormers  of  the  Church  of  ^'to-Z^w^  did 
not  think  proper  to  derive  any  Orders  from  Rome^  nor 
that  our  Lord  Jefus  Chrift  had  entrufted  Antichrift  with 
any  fuch  Orders,  elfe  they  would  pay  their  Deference, 
and  not  their  Abhorrence  to  fuch  0''dinations  ;  they 
therefore  without  a  new  Commiflion  did  proceed  to  a 
Reformation.  And  I  muft  in  Charity  think,  that  the 
Church  of  Scotland  went  about  a  Reformation  on  the 
fame  Grounds,  tho'  in  a  different  Manner,  without 
paying  that  Deference  to  i?5Wif,  which  (it  feems)  fome 
that  would  be  accounted  SuccefTurs  to  thofe  godly  Re- 
formers, are  too  willing  to  do.  Now  then,  What  Rea- 
fon  can  be  rendered  why  other  Communities  of  Chrifti- 
ans,  as  Baptifts  and  Independants,  might  not  fet  about  a 
further  Reformation,  tho'  in  a  fome-what  different  iVlan- 
ner,  without  either  deriving  their  Right  and  Claim 
from  the  Triple  Crown,  or  yet  pretending  to  a  new  Com- 
mifTion  from  Heaven/  to  renew  and  reftore  Gofpel  Or- 
dinances, as  this  Author  would  infinuate  ? 

As  to  the  Second,  It  was  the  common  Complaint  at 
the  Reformation,  that  the  Church  of  Rome  h^A  neither 
Oure  Ordinances,  nor  regular  Adminiflrations  :  And 
iffo,  then  fuppofing,  but  not  granting,  that  Infant- 
fprinkling  was  an  Ordinance  of  Chrift,  the  Prefbyterians 
themfelves  muft  have  it  from  unbaptized  Perfons  ;  and 
(which  is  far  worfe)  from  vifible-Antichriftians  ;  and  io 
it  muft  be  (according  to  our  reverend  Author  himfelf)  a 
Nullity  in  the  Beginning,  and  continue  a  Nullity  ever 
fince  ;  and  then  the  Anti-paedo- baptifts  are  upon  the 
Par  at  leaft  with  the  Kirk  of  Scotland,  or  any  other, 
without  waiting  for  a  new  Commiflion  ;  if  our  Au- 
thor could  make  out  thofe  Points,  he  would  defervc 
better  of  the  See  of  Rorne,    than  any  of  her  own  delicate 

Sons,  _ 

Our 


(    171    ) 

Our  Author  in  Page  8th  hath  thefe  Words,    Tou   muji 
allow^     that  there  was  more  than  iioo  Tears^   in  which  the 
whole  Chrijiian  Church  came  into  the  united  and  conjiant 
PraSiice   of  Infant  baptifm  ;    you  ca)it   pretend   that  this 
PraSlice  was  calle^  in  ^i^^Jiion^    or  mads  a  Matter  of  De- 
bate in  the  Churchy   till  the  Mad-men  oflAwn'^txfet  them- 
(elves  againji  it^    ijfc.     I  am    loth  to  think  this  Author 
was  as  ignorant  as  he  feigns    himfelf  to  be,    and  as  loth 
to   conclude  that   he   took  Liberty  to  fay  any  Thing  to 
prejudice   the    Populace   againft    Adult  baptifm,     and  to 
promote  Bigotry  ;     but   his   Affertion    is    without  good 
Warrant,    accoiding  to  the  Judgment  of  many  learned 
Paedo-baptifts(as  I  hinted  before)  and  it  is  too  well  known  to 
be  denied,   that  Infant- baptifm  was  not  mentioned  in  the 
firft  Century,    and   was  not  common  till  the  third   or 
fourth   Centuries,    if  not   the   Fifth  ;    and  we  have  un- 
doubted Account  of  Debate  made  about   it    in    the  Year 
1025,     by   Gundulphus  and   his    Followers   in  Italy  \  fee 
Cro/ifs   Preface  to  Vol.  i.   of  his  Hiftory  of  the  Englijh 
Baptifts  ;  and  Stennet  againft  Rufen^   Page  84  ;  and  Dr. 
/i^tf// mentions  Bruno  and  Begena>ius  that  apeared  to  op- 
pofe  it    IC35,     which  was  at  Itraft  three  Hundred  Years 
before  the  Infurredioi   of  Muvjler  ;   by  which  it  appears, 
that  the  Account  givtn  b/  this  Gentleman  is  not  to   be 
depended  on  in  this  Aff<  ir. 

Our  Author  in  Page  the  9th,  hath  thefe  Words,  Now 
during  this  long  Period  (\.  e.  the  faid  iiOO  Yearsj  What 
became  of  our  hhjfed  Saviour's  Promife,  to  be  with  his  Mini- 
Jiers  always^  in  the  Adininijiration  of  this  Ordinance 
(meaning  Baptifm)  and  demands  an  Anfwer,  Was  he 
with  them,  or  was  he  not  ?  And  then  draws  Inferences 
from  an  Affirmative  or  Negative  Anfwer,  faying,  If  you 
Anfzvcr  in  the  Affirmative^  you  acknowledge  Infant  baptifm 
to  he  his  own  Injiitution  :  If  you  Anfwer  in  the  Negative, 
you  call  his  Veracity  and  Faithfulnefs  into  ^uejlion.  Here 
is  a  flrong  Piece  to  be  fure,  in  the  Author's  Account, 
his  Argument  hath  two  Horns,  but  they  are  not  good 
Metal  j  for  will  he  himfelf  affirm  this  Promife  is  confined 
to  Baptifm  only  ?  Or  doth  it  not  extend  to  the  Teach- 
ing mentioned  before  and  after  Baptifm,   in  the  Com- 

miflion 


(     17*    ) 

mJflion,  Mat.  xxviii,  19,  20  ?  I  mud  in  Charity  hop« 
that  God  hath  bleffed  the  Dotftrire  of  thf  Gofpel  to  the 
favins;  of  many  Souls,  in  the  Mouths  of  fome  Men  who 
do  not  regularly  baptize  ;  as  our  Author  for  one,  if  a 
Proteftant.  And  here  I  would  afk  this  Pamphleteer,  To 
what  Denomination  of  Minifters  was  that  Promife  fiilfil- 
ed,  during  a  great  Part  of  that  long  Period,  from  the  4th 
to  the  i6th  Century  ;  for  the  true  Church  for  a  great 
Part  of  tliat  Time,  hath  been  under  the  Height  and 
Heat  of  Antichrift's  Tyranny,  and  the  Promife. did  not 
appertain  to  the  Minifters  of  Antichrift,  tho'  they  pre- 
tended to  baptife  :  No,  they  were  the  devouring  [,ocu(ls, 
whofc  King  'S  the  Angel  of  the  Bottom LTs  Pit  ;  fee  Mr. 
Durham  on  Revel.  Page  416,  l^c.  Glaf.  Edit.  Nor  was 
it  to  the  Prefbytcrian  Minifters  ;  for  that  Denomination 
was  not  heard  of,  till  about  the  Year  1541.  Our  Au- 
thor will  not  allow  the  Waidenfes  to  put  in  for  the  Subjedts 
of  our  Lord's  Promife,  m  that  dark  Time  ;  and  good 
Iveafon  why,  leaft  he  (hould  countenance  any  Thing  a- 
gainft  Infant- baptifm  ;  but  by  his  Leave,  that  the  JVal- 
deufes  and  others  I  mentioned  before,  being  Oppofeis  of 
Infant- baptifm,  and  in  the  Pradlice  of  Adult  baptifm, 
is  not  fuch  a  Figment,  as  our  Author  in  Page  nth  would 
have  it  to  be  j  as  appears  by  the  Tef^imonies  produced  by 
Mr.  Stennet  againft  Ruffen^  Page  81--  84.  which  I 
fiiould  have  tranfcribed,  but  my  Bounds  will  not  permit  j 
and  that  the  Firft  that  revived  the  ancient  Pradice  of 
Adult-baptifm  in  England^  had  it  from  them,  is  no  more 
unlikely,  than  for  the  Prefbyterians  to  have  their  Difci- 
pline  from  Geneva  ;  for  the  Engllfh  had  Poflellion  of 
tiirife  Pares  of  France  where  the  ti'aldeyifes  were  moftly 
countenailced,  from  the  Year  1152  fo  the  Year  1452, 
which  was  long  enough  for  many  Perfons  to  become  ac- 
quainted with  the  Principles  and  Practice  of  thofe  godly 
People,  by  fuch  Intercourfe,  and  from  their  Example,  to 
endeavour  a  Reformation  in  England.,  tho'  with  no  great 
Succefi  for  a  while  :  Our  Author  will  find  it  difficult  to 
iix  on  any  Subjects  of  that  Promife,  in  the  Weftern  Parts 
of  the  VVorld  ;  at  leafl  (if  the //'fz/Vf^z/^j  wer€  notj  du- 
ring a  good  Fait  of  that  period  i    nor  can  he  prove  the 

united 


(    173    ) 
united  Prai^iice  of  Tnfant-baptifm  during  the  faid  Periodj 
while  the  faid  Ifaldenfcs  and  others  have  oppofed  it,  and 
pradifed  otherwife,    within  the  faid  Term  ;    and  if  he 
could,  it  would  be  but  a  Scripturelefs  Pradice  (till. 

Now,  upon  the  whole^  the  Truth  is,  That  the  true 
Church  and  Spoufe  of  Jefus  Chrift,  hath  been  in  the 
Wildernefs  the  moft  Part  of  that  long  Period,  and  her 
faithful  Minifters  very  few  (tho'  there  was  moftly,  if  not 
always,  fume  hidden  ones)  and  ihofe  few  prophefying  in 
Sackcloth,  as  is  faid.  Revelation  Chap.  xi.  3.  And  it 
feenis  by  fume  Part  of  that  Prophecy,  that  the  WitneiTes 
fhould  be  entirely  killed,  as  to  the  outward  Viiibility, 
for  a  Time,  and  Popery  in  its  Triumph  ;  and  at  fuch  a 
Time,  the  united  Pradice  muft  be  found  in  all  Popery, 
if  ever  :  But  when  it  pleafed  God  to  bring  Life  and  Im- 
mortality to  Light  again  by  the  Gofpel,  all  that  forfook 
the  Antichrifliian  See  of  Ro77ie^  had  but  the  Foundation 
of  the  Apoftles,  and  Chrift  himfelf  as  a  chief  Corner 
Stone,  to  build  upon  :  At  the  Reformation  therefore, 
every  Company  of  Chriftians,  whom  God  moved  by  his 
Spirit,  and  enabled  by  Grace,  did  fet  about  a  Reformati- 
on ;  and  as  all  then  did  not  fee  alike,  and  thro'  their 
feeing  but  in  Part,  it  came  to  pafs  ('as  Bifhop  Burnet^  a- 
bove  cited,  faid)  that  feveral  Churches  were  differently 
reformed,  and  it  being  fo  that  they  had  neither  pure  Or- 
dinances, nor  regular  Adminiftrators  from  Rorne^  it  is 
no  Wonder  that  if  by  that  NeceiTity  thofe  feveral  Chriflian 
Communities  went  out  of  the  beaten  Path  (as  the  faid 
Bifliop  faid  of  the  Church  oi  England)  and  could  not  go' 
according  to  thofe  Rules  that  ought  to  be  facred  in  regu- 
lar Times,  in  Matters  of  Ordination  ;  and  upon  the 
fame  Footing,  all  the  Reformation  flood  ;  and  the  Kirk 
of  Scotland  muft  fland  fo  likewife  ;  going  to  Geneva  will' 
not  mend  the  Matter  in  the  leaft  ;  for  the  Firfi:  muft  ei- 
ther derive  from  Rome^  which  Proteftants  would  not  then 
do,  or  elfe  endeavour  to  follow  the  imitable  Example  of 
the  Apoftles  in  the  Nev/-Teftament,  tho'  the  Path  had 
been  a  while  difufed  and  interrupted,  by  Reafon  of 
Ro?ni/h  Cruelty,  and  the  dark  Smoak  that  afcended  oat 
of  the  Botomlefs  Pit. 

Wc- 


(     J74    ) 

We  are  perfuaded,  not  ^.thftandingany  Thing  our  Au- 
thor may  endeavour  to  throw  at  our  Miniftejs  or  our 
Praflice,  that  we  ftand  on  as  good? Ground,  as  other 
Proteltants  do  ;  and  we  think  with  ths  Reverend  Mr. 
Davifon  afore-mentioned,  that  a  SuccefTKjn  of  the  Apof- 
tles  Dodrine  beheved  and  received  by  a  People  of  any 
Nation,  and  being  fatisfied  of  one  another'.s  Graces  and 
Principles,  and  being  thereupon  united  together  by  mutu- 
al Covenant,  to  promote  the  Glory  of  God,  and  the 
mutual  Advantage  of  each  others  Souls,  and  the  Good  of 
others,  in  the  publick  Worfhip  of  God  :  We  fay,  fuch 
a  Community,  have  fufficient  Authority  from  Chrift,  to 
call  and  conftitute  whom  they  fhall  judge  qualifiird,  to 
minifler  among  them  in  holy  Things.  This  being  a^  ee- 
able  to  the  true  Proteftant  Principle,  upon  whicli  the 
whole  Reformation  was  built.  Upon  this  ProteftanC 
principle  therefore  we  fatisfy  our  felves,  that  our  Chur- 
ches have  in  them  fufficient  to  give  our  Minifters  as  \alid 
a  Miffion  as  other  Proteflants  have  ;  and  a  regular  Ri^ht 
and  Claim  to  preach  the  Gofpel,  and  to  admirnfter  tlie 
facred  Ordinances  according  to  our  Lord's  pure  Inftituti- 
tlon,  without  going  to  Rome,  or  elfcwhere,  for  it,  and 
•without  waiting  for  a  new  Commiflion  from  Heaven,  to 
renew  and  reftore  them  (as  our  Author  vainly  infinuates) 
for  we  efteem  the  Commiflion,  Mat.  xxviii.  19.  20. 
Mark  xvi.    15,    16.  as  llili  in  force. 

I  {hall  not  trouble  my  felf  at  Prefent,  with  any  Thing 
further  in  the  faid  Pamphlet^  but  advife  the  Author  ^if 
living)  not  to  make  further  Ufe  of  old  Romijh  Clamours  ; 
and  if  he  is  a  Minifter  of  any  reformed  Church,  to  be 
more  fparing  of  his  Flings,  lead  he  find  them  to  hit  him- 
felf,  and  he  be  found  Tapping  the  Grounds  of  the  whole 
Reformation,  by  •  his  zealous  Endeavouring  to  defend 
a  Scripturelefs  Pradice. 


N 


?^^ 


^"?iS^4^ 


>q5g>' 


E    R    RATA. 

PAGE  32,  L  g.  for  imitating,  r.  initia- 
ting.    Page  158,  /.  10  from  the  Bottom^ 
for  Community,  r.  Communion. 

By  reafon  of  the  Author* s  Diflance  and  Ab- 
fence  Jrom  the  Prefs,  Jome  more  Errors,  befdes 
thofe  above  noted,  may  perhaps  be  found  in  this 
Work  ',  which  the  candid  Reader  is  defred  to 
correSi,  according  to  the  Scope  of  the  Difcourje^ 
where  they  may  occur. 


*^^t 


..J^«, 


l^he  Life  and  Death  of  the  Righteom, 

II  —  ■  — 

A 

SERMON, 

PREACHED  at 

Chrifl-Churchy  Philadelphia, 
On  Sunday,  February  the  I3th5  17635 

At  the  Funeral  of 

Mr.,  EVAN  MORGAN. 

By    J  A  C  O  B   t)  U  C  H  E,    M.  A, 

One  of  the  Minijiers  of  the  united  Churches  of 
Chrift- Church,  and  St.  Peter's,  Philadelphia^ 
and  Chaplain  to  the  Right  Honourable  the  Earl 
of  Stirling, 

PHILADELPHIA: 

Printed  by  B;  Franklin,  and  D.  Hall; 
MDCCLXIIL 


To   R.   L.    Efq; 

My  dear  Sir, 
T  H  A  D  no  fooner  complied  with  the  requefi 
-*  of  the  children  of.  my  deceafed  friend  to  let 
this  fermon  be  pri?ited,  than  I  determined  to 
addrefs  it  to  you.  Our  acquaintance^  you  know, 
commenced  early  at  fchool,  and  a  jimilarity  of 
natural  difpofition  confirmed  it  into  an  intimacy. 
I  flattered  myfelf  that  our  friendfljip  was  well 

founded,  difinterefted  a?2djincere.  In  the  eyes 
of  the  world,  it  woidd  have  been  deemed  fo. 
But,  alas  I  the  mofi  efential  ingredient  was 
wanting.  A  lafting  frioidfljip  muft  have  re- 
ligion for  its  bafis.  The  love  of  God  is  the 
only  powerful  cement  by  which  an  union  of  fouls 
can  be  formed  and  maintained.  And  this  love 
can  only  be  fhed  abroad  in  our  hearts  by  the 
kind  and  gracious  influences  of  his  holy  Jpirit. 
'Tis  hence  we  (ire  taught  to  look  upon  Go.d  as 
our  reconciled  father  /«  Ch  r  i  s  t  J  e  s  u  s .  'Tis 
this  fpirit  of  love  which  bears  witnefs  to  our 

fpirit,  that  we  are  his  adopted  children.  The 
love  ^"Christ  conftraineth  us,  not  only  to  an 
ardent  return  of  love  and  defire  towards  him, 
but  likewife  to  the  exercife  of  a  flncere  and 

flrong  affeBion  towards  one  another,  and  efpe-. 
daily  toward  fuch  as  are  of  the  honfljold  cf 

jaith.  'The  children  of  God  alone,  therefore, 
are  capable  of  a  refined,  diflnterefl.ed  and  lafl- 
i}7g  friendfiiip. 

I  HO  P  E,  my  dear  Sir,  yen  will  one  day 

feel  the  truth  of  what  I  now  write  to  you»   In- 
A  2  deed 


[     iv     ] 

deed  I  cannot  but  tremble  for  you,  when  I  re- 
fledi  upon  your  prefent  fituation.     Tour  heart 
Jeems  to  be  too  much  wedded  to  this  world,  a?id 
Eternity y  I  fear.  Is  feldom  in  your  thoughts, 
thanks  be  to  God  for  his  refraining  grace, 
you  have  hitherto  been  preferved  from  the  noto- 
rious vices  of  the  age.     Build  mt,  however, 
7ipon  this.    StriBly  moral  as  your  aBions  ?nay 
have  generally  been,    unlefs  they  have  flowed 
from  a  fmcere  love  of  God  your  Saviour, 
they  will  fand  you  in  no  ftead.     Look  a  little 
into  your  heart,  and  examijie  it  according  to 
this  principle.    Weigh  it  in  this  ballance  of  the 
faniiuary,  and  you  will  foon  find  that  you  have 
been  greatly  wanting.    Shun  the  world  as  much 
'  as  you  pofjibly  can.     Gaiety  is  by  no  means  con- 
ffle?it  with  a  true  feeker  after  fpiritual  wifdom. 
Scenes  of  dijjipation  are  fcenes  of  folly,  [cents  of 
temptation  and  great  danger.     Fly  them,   my 
dear  friend.    They  are  fatal  rocks,  upon  which 
many  A  thoughtlefs,  fangimie  youth  hath  been 
fliipwmcked.    If  you  are  Jiaturally  of  a  chear- 
fid  difpofition,  and  would  fain  indulge  it  to 
the  iitmofl,  let  me  advij'e  you,   in  the  words 
of  our  excellent  chri/lian  poet,  to 
"  Retire  and  read  your  Bible  to  be  gay." 
AS  you  have  always  fl^ewn  afingidar  par- 
tiality to  every  thing  that  came  from  me,  I  hope, 
in  the  prefent  cafe,   my  fentime7its  will  not  be 
tmfavourably  received. 

I  am,  with  great  fincerity. 

Your  true  friend  and  well-wifher. 


[    5    ] 


PSALM   XXXVII.   37. 

Mark  the  perfcB  man,  and  behold  the  upright -^ 
for  the  end  of  that  man  is  peace. 

'^fcT'^UST  thou  art,  and  unto  dull 
I  1  thou  flialt  return,"  was  the  aw- 
ji^  ful  fentence  denounced  againfl 
rebellious  man  by  his  infinite- 
ly juft  Creator.  No  fooner  ^had  he  fallen 
from  that  ftate  of  innocence  and  perfedion, 
that  ftate  of  intimate  communion  with  God, 
in  which  his  light,  and  life,  and  happinefs  fu- 
preme  confifted,  than  he  became  fubjed:  to 
the  power  and  dominion  of  Sin  and  Sa- 
tan. By  his  traiifgreffion  Sin  firfl  entered 
into  the  world,  and  became  tlia  prolific  pa-= 
rent  of  an  innumerable  offspring,  that  fet 
themfelves  continually  in  array  againfi:  the 
peace  and  happinefs  of 'man.  The  Lift,  the 
moll  hideous  and  implacable  of  thefe  is 
Death,  the  king  of  terrors,  to  whofe  iron 
fway  we  muft  all  irrefiftibly  fubmit.  Neither 
age,  nor  fex,  nor  rank,  nor  fortune,  nor  me- 
rit, can  exempt  us.  Thick,  faft  and  fatal  his 
arrows  fly  abroad.  Every  one  of  us,  in  his 
own  little  fphere,  is  almofi:  daily  prefented 
with  inftances  of  his  unlimited  power.  And 
could  we  be  placed  in  a  fituation,  that  would 

enable 


[    6     ] 

enable  us  to  take  in  the  whole  race  of  man- 
kind at  one  view,  the  world  would  appear 
to  us  like  a  vaft  theatre,  overfpread  with 
fcenes  of  blood,  where  this  grim  ghaftly 
tyrant,  with  his  infernal  meflengers  and  at- 
tendants, were  continually  ftalking  from 
place  to  place,  increafing  and  exulting  in 
the  carnage. 

On  one  part,  we  fliould  behold  fields 
covered  with  the  carcafes  of  thoufands  flain 
in  battle ;  on  another,  whole  cities  unpeo- 
pled by  a  deftroying  peftilence  :  Here,  we 
iliould  fee  a  monarch  laid  in  the  duft,  who 
was  the  darling  and  comfort  of  his  fubjedts ; 
there,  an  infamous  opprefTor  tumbled  from 
his  throne,  and  conflrained  himfelf  to  Hib- 
mit  to  a  fate,  which  he  had  frequently  and 
unjuftly  haftened  upon  others.  On  this  fide, 
a  difconfolate  v/idow  bewails  the  lofs  of  an 
affedionate  hulband  ;  on  the  other,  a  Ra- 
chel is  weeping  for  her  children,  and  re- 
fufes  to  he  comforted,  becaufe  they  are  not. 
Here,  the  Jong-loved  partner  of  his  heart 
is  torn  from  the  embraces  of  an  afflidied 
fpoufe  ;  there,  a  pious,  tender  and  indul- 
gent father  refigns  without  reludlance  to  the 
ftroke,  and  leaves  to  his  lamenting  children 
the  rich  legacy  of  an  exemplary  life  and 
death. 

Amid  this  general  daily  devaftation,  whilfl 
*'  thoufands  fall  befide  us,  and  ten  thoufands 
at  our  right  hand,"  one  would  think,  we 

lliould 


1 


[    7    ] 

fliould  fland  in  need  of  no  other  motive  ta 
awaken  in  us  a  fenfe  of  our  danger,  and  ex- 
cite us  to  lay  hold  of  fuch  methods  as  will 
mofl  effed:ua]Iy  fupport  us  under  it.  One 
would  think  that  fo  melancholy  a  profped: 
would  naturally  lead  us  to  fome  fuch  re- 
£e(5tions  as  thefe  : — 

Every  day  almofl  informs  me  of  the 
Death  of  one  or  other  of  my  friends  or  ac- 
quaintance. Many  younger,  and  feemingly 
more  healthy  than  myfelf,  have  I  followed 
to  the  grave.  Surely  I  am  mortal  as  well  as 
they.  Surely  I  am  not  exempt  from  the 
common  lot  of  human  nature,  but  fooner  or 
later  muft  obey  the  fummons  of  Death.  To- 
day he  knocks  at  the  door  of  my  neigh- 
bour. To-morrow,  perhaps,  he  may  knock 
at  mine— And  fhould  this  be  the  cafe;— - 

am  I  prepared  for  fuch  a  vifit ! 

The  misfortune  is,  my  brethren,  that 
men  choofe  to  keep  this  profped  at  a  di- 
ftance ;  and,  whenever  thefe  refledions  come 
acrofs  their  minds,  as  frequently,  and  in  fpite 
of  all  their  endeavours  to  refill  them,  they 
will  obtrude,  they  immediately  feek  to  ba- 
ni(h  them,-  by  that  round  of  worldly  cares 
and  pleafures  in  which  they  are  continually 
engaged.  But  why,  vain  man  !  why  doll: 
thou  fo  induftrioufly  feek  to  drive  from  thy 
heart  the  thought  of  Death .?— Is  it,  tLt  it 
embitters  thy  cup  of  delights,  and  caBs  a 
deadly  damp  upon  thy  fprightliefl  enjoy- 
ments ? 


[     8     ] 

ments  ?  Does  his  grim  vifage  and  envenom- 
ed fhaft  affright  thee?  Does  horror  freeze 
thy  blood,  when  thy  imagination  prefents  to 
thee  the  fhroud,  the  coffin,  the  cold  dark 
grave,  and  all  the  difmal  fcenery  of  death  ? 
— Doubtlefs,  thefe  objedts  cannot  but  alarm 
thee  greatly.  But  if  thou  art  fincere  and 
ingenuous,  thou  canft  not  but  acknov^ledge, 
that  thy  terror  and  uneafinefs  proceeds  not 
fo  much  from  the  apprehenfions  of  death  it- 
felf,  as  of  that  fubfequent  ftate  into  which  it 
inftantaneoufly  hurries  thee. 

Fear  is  one  of  the  moft  difagreeable 
fcnlations  that  human  nature  is  fubjedl  to; 
and  the  fear  oT  death  is  the  greatcft  of  all 
fears.  To  overcome  it,  or  even  to  allay  it, 
requires  more  than  human  fortitude.  Our 
natural  flrength  will  fland  us  in  poor  ftead 
at  this  dire  encounter.  There  is,  however, 
a  remedy,  and  a  never-failing  one  too, 
which  a  God  of  infinite  love  hath  provided 
for  us.  The  fear  of  death  is  a  fpiritual  ma- 
lady. The  great  phyfician  of  fouls  hath, 
therefore,  furnifhed  us  with  a  noble  Pre- 
fcription.  'Tis  at  hand.  You  have  it  iri 
my  text :  And,  if  you  are  humble  and  pa- 
tient of  inftru6tion,  you  cannot  but  derive 
confiderable  advantages  from  it :  "  Mark 
'  the  perfed:  man,  and  behold  the  upright ; 
for  tile  end  of  that  man  is  peace." 

That  I  might  comply  in  fome  meafure 
with  the  dying  requefl  of  my  dear  departed 

friend. 


[      9      ] 

friend,  by  improving  this  melancholy  o^ca= 
lion  to  the  fpiritual  benefit  of  his  furvivors, 
I  made  choice  of  the  words  which  I  have 
read  to  you,  as  elegantly  expreffive  of  the 
way  and  means,  by  which  alone  we  can  ob- 
tain an  undifturbed  peace  and  ferenity  of 
mind  through  life,  and  an  unfliaken  iirmnefs 
and  confolation  in  death.  This  being  the 
great  and  important  lefTon  which  they  incul- 
cate, i  fliali  naturally  be  led  from  them  to 
fet  before  you  the  life  and  death  of  the 
RIGHTEOUS  MAN  ;  Only  making  this  pre- 
vious obfervation,  that  by  the  words  ''  per- 
fed"  and  "  upright/'  here  made  ufe  of,  we 
are  to  underftand  that  degree  of  holinefs  and 
perfedion,  which  it  is  poffible  for  every  one 
of  us  to  attain  on  this  lide  the  grave. 

I  AM  now  fpeaking  to  a  christian 
AUDIENCE,  and,  as  a  christian  mini- 
ster, I  am  bound  to  give  you  the  life  and 
charader  of  the  righteous  man,  agreeable  to 
that  glorious  fyftem  of  divine  truth,  which 
God  hath  been  gracioufly  pleafed  to  reveal 
to  mankind,  by  his  own  well-beloved  Son. 
According  to  this  word  of  truth,  the  righ- 
teous man  is  he,  whofe  adions  are  conform- 
able to  the  WILL  OF  God,  have  an  imme- 
diate tendency  to  proTnote  the  glory  of 
God,  and  flow  from  no  other  motive  than 
the  love  of  God. — But  if  thefe  things  are 
fo,  if  it  requires,  all  this  to  be  righteous,  who 
is  he  that  (hall  be  faved  ?  Does  not  this  far 
B  furpafs 


[      lo      ] 
furpafs  the  natural  ftrength  of  man  ? — Afk 
the  experienced  chrifhian,  and  he  will  not 
be  at  a  lofs  for  an  anfwer. 

Born  in  fin,  and  laden  with  adlual  tranf- 
greflion,  poor  guilty  Man  cannot  advance 
one  fingle  fl:ep  in  the  paths  of  righteoufnefs, 
till  he  lays  hold  by  faith  on  the  hand  of  a 
Redeemer.  Refting  folely  upon  the  me- 
rits of  his  all-atoning  blood,  he  dares  to  ap- 
proach with  confidence  the  throne  of  grace, 
and  aOc  of  his  heavenly  father  that  fandify- 
ing  .SPIRIT,  which  he  hath  promifed  to 
beftow  liberally  upon  all  thofe  that  believe 
in  his  Son.  Here  then  is  a  rich  fountain 
opened  to  the  houfe  of  David.  Here  is 
the  pure  inexhauflible  fource  from  whence 
aione  true  holinefs  can  flow.  ''  He  that  is 
born  of  God,  cannot  but  overcome  the 
world.  The  love  of  God  can  only  be  fhed 
abroad  in  our  hearts  by  his  holy  fpirit,  which 
he  hath  given  us."  Till  we  are  born  of  this 
fpirit,  all  our  righteoufnefs  is  but  unrigh- 
teoufneli.  I'ill  we  have  this  principle  of 
love  in  our  fouls,  all  our  doings  are  nothing 
worth.  That  image  of  God,  which  man  lofl 
by  his  firft  difobedience,  can  only  be  renew- 
ed by  the  fame  creating  energy  that  breath- 
ed into  his  noilrils  the  breath  of  life.  ''  'Tis 
the  fpirit  alone  that  beareth  witnefs  to  our 
fpirit  that  we  are  the  children  of  God."  Ac- 
tuated by  this  divine  principle,"  the  good  man, 
mt  of  the  good  treafure  of  his  heart,  bringeth 

forth 


[  »  ] 

forth  good  things."  His  adions  muft  be  con- 
formable to  the  will  of  God,  they  muft  have 
a  tendency  to  promote  thcglory  of  God,  they 
muft  flow  folely  from  a  love  and  veneration 
for  God,  becaufe  they  are  immediately  in- 
fpired  by  the  fpirit  of  God,  by  that  fpirit, 
"  which  worketh  in  us  to  will  and  to  do, 
according  to  his  good  pleafure/' 

"  Except  your  righteoufnefs  (hall  exceed 
the  righteoufnefs  of  the  Scribes  and  Phari- 
fees,"  fays  our  blessed  Lord,  "  ye  can- 
not enter  into  the  kingdom  of  Heaven." 
Thefe  Scribes  and  Pharifees  were  extremely 
rigid  and  exad  in  their  obfervance  of  the 
ceremonial  law,  being  fo  very  minute  as  to 
pay  tythes  of  mint,  and  annis,  and  cummino 
How  comes  it  then,  that  our  Saviour  fo 
repeatedly  condemns  them  ?  Why,  becaufe 
their  fole  motive  to  this  practice  was  a  fmful 
worldly  onCj  viz.  that  they  might  be  iecn 
of  me'n^  that  they  might  be  diftinguifhed 
by  greetings  in  all  public  places,  and  ho- 
noured with  the  venerable  appellation  of 
"  Rabbi,  Rabbi."  I  would  fain  hope, 
my  brethren,  that,  among  our  chriftian  fo- 
cieties,  there  are  very  few  that  are  aduated 
by  this  pharifaical  principle  :  I  am  afraid, 
however,  that  there  are  too  many  who  build 
their  hopes  of  falvation  upon  fundry  external 
performances,  which  are  indeed  right,  and 
their  bounden  duty,  but  which  are  of  no 
avail  in  the  light  of  God,  unlefs  they  flow 
B  2  from 


I       ^2       ] 

from  that  fpirit  of  love,  which  I  have  jult 
mentioned.  All  the  outward  ordinances  of 
religion  are  intended  as  channels  of  divine 
grace,  by  which  it  is  conveyed  to  thofe  who 
have  it  not,  and  strengthened  and  increaled 
in  thofe  who  have  already  received  it.  'Tis 
the  children  of  God  alone,  thofe  who  have 
received  this  fpirit  of  adoption  and  love,  that 
can.  profit  any  thing  by  thefe  outward  ordi- 
nances. 'Tis  to  them  alone  that  they  are 
"  the  favour  of  life  unto  life." 

Having  thus  (een  the  grand  principle 
and  fource  from  whence  alone  all  righteouf- 
nefs  can  flow,  let  us  now  attend  to  the  in- 
fluence which  it  hath  upon  the  life  and 
converfation  of  him,  to  whom  God  hath 
vouchfafed  to  commtanicate  it.  "  Mark  the 
perfed  man,  and  behold  the  upright ;  for 
the  end  of  that  man  is  peace." 

Observe  him,  firfl:,  in  his  devout  ex- 
ercilbs  of  religion. — His  very  countenance 
glows  with  the  flame  that  is  kindled  in  his 
heart.  By  the  fpirit  of  prayer,  he  is  raifed 
far  above  this  fcene  of  vanity.  The  world, 
with  ail  its  empires  and  kingdoms,  and  rich^ 
es,  and  pomps,  and  pleafures,  finks  beneath 
his  feet.  He  is  borne  upon  the  wings  of 
love  to  the  heaven  of  heavens.  He  mixes 
with  that  immortal  choir  of  angels  and  fe- 
r-iphs  that  furround  the  throne  of  God.  Nay, 
he  enjoys,  in  fome  degree,  the  beatific  com- 
munion of  God  himfelf.    His  foul  is  pofi^el- 

fed 


I  '3  ] 
fed  of  that  peace  of  God  which  paffeth  all 
underftanding,  of  that  tranfcendently  great 
and  glorious  joy  which  is  beyond  the  power 
of  words  to  exprefs.  In  the  courfe  of  his 
meditations,  the  wonders  of  redeeming 
LOVE  pafs  in  order  before  his  view,  and  make 
deeper  and  deeper  impreffions  upon  his  yield- 
ing  heart.  His  eyes  are  fixed  to  the  top  of 
trembling  Calvary,  to  a  crucified  Sa- 
viour— groaning — bleeding — dying — for 
his  fins.  At  this  inftance  of  unexampled 
tendernefs  and  affection,  his  love  blazes  a- 
frefh,  his  heart  is  melted  beneath  the  flame, 
and  his  whole  foul  rufhes  forth,  as  it  were, 
to  embrace  fo  compaifionate  a  Redeemer. 
He  has  no  refi:  till  he  finds  himfelf  in  the 
arms  of  his  BELovED^-^where,  iliielded  from 
the  temptations  of  the  world,  and  the  alTaults 
of  Satan,  he  enjoys  a  heavenly  peace  and 
repofe,  which  nothing  here  below  can  rob 
him  of.  "  Mark  the  perfed:  man,  and  be- 
hold the  upright  j  for  the  end  of  that  m.an 
is  peace." 

View  him,  fecondly,  in  the  exercifeof  the 
feveral  duties  in  which  he  ftands  engaged  to  his 
brethren,  confidered  either  as  the  workman- 
ihip  of  the  fame  almighty  Creator,  or  as  fel- 
low-members with  him  of  his  Redeemer's 
myftical  body.  For  he  cannot  but  attend  to 
the  excellent  diflindiion  made  by  the  apoftle, 
and  in  conformity  thereto,  is  confiantly  dif- 
pofed  to  "  do  good  unto  all  men,  but  efpe- 

cially 


[  H  ] 
cially  unto  thofe  that  are  of  the  houfliold  of 
faith." — He  is  a  companion  of  all  thofe  that 
"  fear  God,  and  keep  his  commandments." 
!His  love  to  his  brethren  is  always  propor- 
tioned to  the  degres  of  love  which  they  ex- 
ercife  towards  God.  Confequently  none  can 
be  his  intimates,  but  thofe  whofe  hearts  are 
animated  by  the  fame  warmth  of  afFedion, 
which  he  continally  feels.  To  others,  how- 
ever, he  is  always  ready  to  minifter  in  tem- 
poral as  well  as  fpiritual  things.  "  He  is 
eyes  to  the  blind,  and  feet  to  the  lame."  His 
prefence  brightens  the  gloom  of  poverty,  and 
chears  the  retreats  of  diftrefs.  At  his  ap- 
proach the  languifhing  fick  revive,  and  the 
difconfolate  mourner  fmiles.  The  tears  of 
the  orphan  ceafe  to  flow,  and  the  hopelefs 
widow  fmgs  for  joy.  The  fame  fpirit  of  love 
diffufes  itfelf  throughout  his  whole  conduit  in 
every  relation,  which  providence  calls  him  to 
fuftain.  The  fame  divine  principle,  work- 
ing in  his  foul,  renders  him  a  dutiful  child, 
an  afFedlionate  hufband,  a  tender  father,  a 
kind  mafter,  an  obedient  fubjed:,  a  juft  ma- 
c^iftiate,  a  fincere  friend.  Thus  is  his  whole 
life  a  feries  of  benevolent  ad:ions,  every  one 
of  which  is  attended  with  that  fweet  peace 
of  mind,  that  flows  from  an  approving  con- 
fcience.  *'  Mark  the  perfeft  man,  and  be^ 
hold  the  upright  -,  for  the  end  of  that  man 
h  peace." 

Con- 


L     15     ] 

Consider  him,  in  the  next  place,  either 
as  bleffed  by  the  hand  of  providence  with  a 
flow  of  profperity,  or  vifited  with  the  rigours 
of  adverfity.  In  the  former  cafe,  his  afflu- 
ence is  fandificd  to  pious  and  charitable  ufes. 
He  expends  none  of  it  upon  the  luxuries  and 
vanities  of  the  world,  but  conliders  himfelf 
only  as  a  fteward  entrufted  with  it  by  his 
lord  and  mafter  for  the  good  of  his  brethrenj 
to  be  employed  in  the  relief  of  thofe  poor 
famiflied  fouls,  for  whom,  as  well  as  for 
him,  a  merciful  Saviour  died. — Is  adverlity 
his  portion,  he  fubmits  to  it  with  patience 
and  relignation  3  nay,  he  deems  it  a  bleffing, 
and  l^ilTes  the  rod,  wherewith  he  is  cha- 
ftifed.  FJor  he  remembers,  that  "  whom 
the  Lord  loveth  he  correfteth,  and  chaft- 
neth  every  fon  that  he  receiveth."  His 
faith  and  love  are  always  at  hand,  and  admi- 
hifter  to  him  an  unfailing  confolation  and 
fupport.  His  peace  of  mind  remains  invio= 
late,  lince  he  is  taught  by  the  fpirit  of  truth, 
that  abideth  in  his  breaft,  to  receive  every 
difpenfation  of  his  heavenly  father  with  fub-? 
miffion,  nay,  with  thankfgiving, 

I  NOW  come  to  finirti  the  character  of 
the  "perfect,  upright  man,"  by  fetting  be- 
fore you  the  iirmnefs,  peace  and  ferenity  of 
mind  with  which  he  meets  the  approaches 
of  Death. 

Come,  then^  my  fellow-chriftians !  ac- 
cgmpany  me  for  once  to  a  fcene,  which  I 

could 


[     .6     ] 

could  wifli  was  more  frequently  the  objed; 
of  your  attention  and  ferious  refle(flion  !  Fol- 
low mc  to  the  death-bed  of  the  righte- 
ous— Nor  be  ye  alarmed  at  the  invitation, 
or  imagine  that  I  intend  to  deprefs  your  fpi- 
iits,  and  make  you  melancholy.  'Tis  no 
tragedy,  I  can  alTure  you,  for  the  hero  is 
vidorious  and  triumphant. — 

To  a  man,  my  brethren,  who  has  ob- 
tained an  intereft  by  faith  in  the  blood  of 
a  Redeemer,  who  hath  experienced  the 
birth  of  the  Son  of  God  in  his  foul,  whofe 
heart  and  affetftions  are  fan(5lified  by  the  in- 
dwelling of  the  SPIRIT  of  love,  who,  by 
the  powerful  aid  of  the  fame  fpirit,  hath 
been  enabled  to  triumph  over  the  devil,  the 
world,  and  the  flefh  ;  whofe  converfation  is 
in  heaven,  and  whofe  hopes  are  fixed  up- 
on a  better  country ,^  on  the  other  fide  the 
grave  J — to  fuch  a  man,  death  is  fo  far  from 
being  a  rude,  unwelcome  gueft,  that  he  is 
embraced  Vv^ith  all  the  eagernefs  and  fatisfac- 
tion  with  which  we  receive  a  long-expected 
Friend.  Ghaftiy  and  terrific  as  he  is,  the 
refledion,  that  he  is  come  to  refcue  him 
from  this  fcene  of  temptation,  and  tranf- 
port  him  to  the  Bofopi  of  his  Father  and 
his  God,  ftrips  the  monfter  of  his  native 
horrors,  and  irradiates  the  gloom  that  at- 
tends his  approaches. 

Stretched  upon  a  bed  of  ficknefs,  ian- 
guifhing  beneath  the  fucceffive  Shocks  of 

fome 


[  '7  J 
fome  inveterate  difeafe ;  furrounded,  per- 
haps, by  an  afflided  wife,  with  her  Httle; 
lovely  train  of  weeping  innocents,  behold  1 
the  good,  perfe6t,  upright  man  lies  calm, 
peaceful  and  unruffled  amid  fo  many  rude 
aflaults.  His  faith  hath  fixed  him  to  the 
rock  of  ages ;  and  the  ftorms  of  adverlity 
can  never  beat  him  off. — "  I  know,  that  my 
Redeemer  liveth,"  fays  the  expiring  hero. 
I  know  that  he  that  ''  fpeaketh  in  righteouf- 
nels,  is  mighty  to  fave  :  And  tho'  I  walk 
through  the  valley  of  the  (hadow  of  Death, 
I.  will  fear  no.  evil."  Though  the  region  I 
am  about  to  travel  thro'  is  a  dreary  region, 
covered  with  midnight  darknefs,  and  in- 
fefled  with  foul  fiends,  and  legions  of  De- 
vils^ — yet  I  know,  that  the  rays  of  the  Sun 
OF  Righteousness  will  enlighten  my 
path.  I  have  his  buckler  to  repel  the  fiery 
darts  of  my  adverfaries.  I  have  his  rod  and 
ftaff  to  comfort  and  fupport  me. — The  flrug- 
gle  betwixt  life  and  death  is  a  painful  one, 
'tis  true — but  'tis  a  very  fhort  one»  And 
fhall  I  fhrink  at  the  agony  of  a  moment  ^ 
when  that  agony  is  to  open  the  glories  of  pa~ 
radife  upon  my  foul  ? — Shall  I  recoil  from 
the  embraces  of  Death,  when  I  know,  that 
he  is  my  friend  and  deliverer,  who  alone 
can  unfetter  my  fouj,  and  let  me  out  of  this 
prifon-houfe  of  clay  ? — Weep  not,  then, 
thou  dear  afflicted  partner  of  my  heart ! 
C  Weep 


[  i8  ] 
Weep  not  ye  fweet  innocent  pledges  of  our 
chafte  affedion  ! — I  have  learned  not  to  weep, 
even  for  you — Surely  you  would  not  keep 
me  back  from  my  Redeemer,  when  his 
arms  are  flretched  forth  to  receive  me  ! — 
'Tis  he  alone  that  gives  me  confidence  in 
this  hour  of  danger  ;  and  the  fame  that  I 
feel  for  myfelf,  he  teaches  me  likewife  to 
feel  for  you. — He  will  be  a  hufband  to  my 
difconfolate  widow  :  He  will  be  a  father  to 
my  poor  orphan  babes. — I  have  not  then 
one  fingle  worldly  tie,  that  makes  me  wifh 
a  moment's  longer  ftay.  "  My  defire  is  to 
depart,  and  be  with  Christ."  An  holy 
ipnpatience  hath  taken  poffelTion  of  my  foul. 
1  can  brook  no  delay,  "  O  why  are  his 
chariot  wheels  io  long  in  coming  ?  Why 
tarry  the  wheels  of  his  chariot  !  Come, 
Lord  Jesus,  come^ quickly !" 

Thus,  my  brethren,  have  I  endeavoured 
to  fet  before  you,  in  the  ftrongeft  colours 
that  I  was  able,  the  characfler  of  the  righ- 
teous MAN,  together  with  that  peace  and 
ferenity  of  mind  which  accompanies  him 
through  life,  but  is  more  fully  and  eminent- 
ly difplayed  at  the  approaches  of  Death  = 
''  Mark  the  perfed:  man,  and  behold  the 
upright  ;  for  the  end  of  that  man  is 
peace." — 

And  now  permit  me  to  add  a  few  words 
;n  memory  of  that  departed  Friend,   whofe 

remain? 


L     19    ] 
remains  will,  in  a  few  moments,  be  com- 
mitted to  the  duft. 

"  Funeral   panegyrics  were  originally 
defigned  as  auxiliaries  to  us,  in  recommend- 
ing piety  and  virtue  from  the  conlideration 
of  fome   ftriking  inftance   of  mortality,    or 
from  the  excellencies  of  the  perfon  departed. 
By  degrees  the  beft  inftitutions  are  corrupted. 
The  preacher  was  expe<fled  to  gratify  the 
vanity  of  furvivors  by  attributing  all  human 
perfections  to  the  perfon  whofe  memory  he 
celebrated.     This   naturally   weakened  the 
force,  and  leiTened  the  credit  of  difcourfes 
of  this  fort.     But  I  am  encouraged  to  lay 
before   you  the   example  of  my   deceafed 
friend  by  this  happy  circumftance,  that  you 
yourfelves    were   witneiTes    to    moO:    of  his 
virtues  j  and  therefore,  inftead  of  difgufling 
by  the  imperfed:  juflice  I  (hall  do  to  his  me- 
mory, I  might  have  been  juftiy  cenTured  by 
others,  and  fhould  certainly  have  condemned 
'myfelf  for  omitting  it."   Befides,  the  relation 
in  which  I  flood  connected  with  him  from 
my  infancy,    demands  this  tribute  at  my 
hands.    He  anfwered  in  my  name  at  the 
baptifmal   font ;  and  from   that  time   hath 
been  a  faithful  guardian  over  my  fpiritual  in- 
tereft.    And  'tis  with  fincere  pleafure  I  now 
acknowledge,  that  I  received  much  affiftance 
and  improvement  in  practical  religion  from  his 
pious  counfels,  and  exemplary  converfation. 
B  2  "From 


[       2t.       ] 

From  his  carlieft  years  he  was  a  zealous 
profefTor  of  our  true  gofpel  religion.  That 
gay  and  flowery  fealbn  of  life,  which  too 
many  employ  in  the  purfuit  of  fecular  plea- 
fures  and  vanities,  did  he  feduloufly  devote  to 
the  attainment  of  the  "  one  thing  needful," 
even  the  "  knowledge  of  Jesus  Christ, 
and  him  crucified."  His  extraordinary  fuc- 
cefs  herein  foon  manifefted  itfelf  by  the  vifi- 
ble  influence  it  had  upon  his  conduct,  in  all 
the  different  relations  he  was  called  upon  to 
fuftain.  For  'tis  the  peculiar  excellence  of 
chrifliianity,  that  all  its  fincere  difciples  are 
thereby  rendered  capable  of  knowing  and 
fulfiUing  their  duty  in  all,  even  the  mofi;  dif- 
ficult inftances.  Influenced  by  this  holy 
principle,  the  private  as  well  as  public  cha- 
rader  of  our  deceafed  friend  was  in  moft  re- 
Ipeds  amiable  and  praife- worthy. 

As  to  his  private  charadcr,  he  was  indeed 
naturally  of  a  warm  and  impetuous  temper, 
fixed  in  an  opinion  he  had  once  deliberately 
formed,  and  rather  impatient  of  oppofition. 
This  he  would  frequently  acknowledge  was 
troublefomc  and  painful  to  him,  and  that  he 
was  obliged  to  have  recourfe  to  all  the  aids  of 
religion  to  keep  it  under.  And  yet  even  this 
natural  violence  of  temper,  when  feafoned  by 
the  grace  of  God,  contributed  not  a  little  to 
his  Ipiritual  advancement.  This  warmtli, 
v/hen  it  had  once  received  a  proper  direction 

from 


i  21  ] 

from  the  fplrit  of  love,  became  a  lincere  and 
ardent  zeal  for  the  glory  of  God.  In  other 
refpedts,  his  paffions  were  generally  under 
the  controul  of  religion,  and  he  was  always 
diftinguifhed  for  a  remarkable  temperance^ 
chaftity  and  fobriety. 

If  we  coniider  him  in  his  private  connec- 
tions ;  as  an  hulband,  he  had  an  high  and  af- 
fectionate fenfe  of  the  purity  and  dignity  of 
the  conjugal  flate  ;  as  a  father,  he  was  not 
fo  much  concerned  for  the  temporal  as  the 
eternal  welfare  of  his  children,  which  he 
endeavoured  to  fecure  as  far  as  lay  in  his 
power,  by  a  good  and  pious  education  ;  as  a 
friend,  he  was  cautious  of  forming  intima- 
cies, but  fixed  and  fincere,  when  he  had 
formed  them. — Nor  did  his  light  fhine  alone 
before  his  family  and  friends,  but  was  vifible 
to  the  world,  by  his  regular  attendance  on 
the  public  ordinances  of  religion.  So  punc- 
tual was  he  in. this  refped:,  that,  unlefs  lick» 
nefs  prevented  him,  thefe  doors  were  never 
open  on  the  weekly  days  of  prayer,  but  he 
was  one  of  the  few  that  "  negleded  not  the 
alTembling  themfelves  together." 

A  MAN  fo  exemplary  in  his  private  life, 
could  not  fail  of  attrading  the  public  regard. 
Civil  as  well  as  religious  communities  are  ge- 
nerally fond  of  enrolling  men  of  virtue  and 
integrity  in  the  number  of  their  members. 
I  need  not  mention  to  thefe  united  conere- 

o 

gations 


[       22       J 

gations,  the  many  great  fervices  which  he 
hath  chearfully  and  induftrioufly  rendered 
to  them,  hy  his  faithful  difcharge  of  the  of- 
fice of  a  church-warden  and  veftry-man  for 
above  twenty  years  part.  He  had  indeed  the 
intereft  of  thefe  churches  much  at  heart : 
And  'tis  owing  greatly,  under  God,  to  his 
adlive  perfevering  zea!,  that  we  have  at  pre- 
fent  fo  fair  a  profped  of  their  increafe  and 
advancement. 

Beside  his'connecflions  with  the  church, 
he  was  hkewife  honoured  with  a  fecular  di- 
flintftion,  having  been  for  feveral  years  a 
member  of  our  honourable  Houfe  of  Re- 
prefentatives.  And  in  this  ftation  he  might 
perhaps  have  been  continued  till  his  death, 
by  the  voice  of  his  countrymen,  had  not  the 
profpedl  of  parties  and  divifions  in  the  ftate 
threatened  him  with  a  breach  of  his  peace  of 
mind,  and  prompted  him  to  a  timely  refig- 
nation,  when  he  was  convinced  that  the  in- 
fluence of  a  good  mftn  would  have  but  little 
weight*.  The 


*  The  author  does  not  intend,  in  this  part  of  the 
charadler,  to  refleft  upon  the  conduct  of  any  particular  fett 
of  men,  who  were  at  that  lime  concerned  in  the  admini- 
<lration  of  public  affairs.  'Tis  a  matter  of  h&,  that  there 
was  too  much  heat  and  violence  fliewn  on  both  fides,  by 
the  conicndin^  parties.  It  is  not  the  author's  bufinefs  to 
pronounce  which  of  them  were  in  the  right.  The  cenfure 
is  meant  as  a  general  one,  and  the  fentiment  here  exprefled 
was  that  of  the  deceafed  himfclf,  which  he  has  repeatedly 
declared  to  numbers  of  his  acquaintance. 


[    23     ] 

Tr^E  laft  public  employment  in  which 
he  engaged,  and  which  I  believe  he  held 
till  his  death,  was  as  a  manager  of  one 
of  the  moft  excellent  inlHtutions  that  hu- 
man benevolence  could  devife,  an  infti- 
tution  that  will  ever  do  honour  to  the  me- 
mory of  its  pious  founders  -,  1  mean  the 
hofpital,  for  the  reception  and  relief  of  the 
iick  and  lunatic  in  this  province.  Here  his 
charitable  diipolitioji  amply  manifefled  itfelf 
to  the  eyes  of  all,  as  well  by  his  generous 
contribution  to  its  iirft  eftablifhment,  as  by 
his  regular  attendance  on  the  duties  of  his 
ftation  there,  and  the  zeal  which  he  at  all 
times  exerted  for  its  advancement. 

In  general,  then,  we  may  pronounce  of 
the  character  of  our  departed  friend,  tha£ 
his  life  was  diftinguifhed  by  a  regular  con-^ 
ftant  pradice  of  piety  towards  his  God^ 
and  charity,  in  all  its  branches,  to  his  bre- 
thren.  And  as  he  was  exemplary  in  his 
life,  fo  was  he  alfo  in  his  death.  His  life 
was  pious,  and  his  death  happy.  PJe  un- 
derwent a  lingering  painful  illnefs,  with  a 
patience  and  refignation  that  was  truly  chri= 
jftian.  His  hopes  were  extended  to  a  better 
country.  Death  and  the  grave,  thereforCs 
could  have  no  terrors  to  him.  Peaceful  and 
ferene,  he  took  his  farewel  of  mortality, 
and  fled  on  the  wings  of  love  to  that  para-^ 
dife  of  biifs,  where  his  Redeemer  liveth^ 

where 


[       24       ] 

where  joys  immortal  clufter  round  the 
throne  of  God,  and  faints  ling  everlafting 
hallelujahs  to  God  and  the  Lamb. 

God  grant  that  we  may  all  fo  profit 
by  this  excellent  example,  that  with  him 
we  may  be  partakers  of  the  fame  hea- 
venly kingdom,  through  Jesus  Christ 
OUR   Lord. 


The     END. 


